4.2 Article

Practice Patterns of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement in Acute Stroke: Are the Guidelines Achievable?

期刊

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 2694-2700

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.07.017

关键词

Stroke; gastrostomy; clinical practice pattern; guideline adherence

资金

  1. [NIH - NCATS KL2 TR000060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Our objectives were to evaluate trends in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement rate and timing in acute stroke patients. We hypothesized that noncompliance with clinical practice guidelines for timing of tube placement and an increase in placement occurred because of a decrease in length of hospital stay. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of archival hospital billing data from the Florida state inpatient healthcare cost and utilization project database from 2001 to 2012 for patients with a primary diagnosis of stroke. Outcome measures were timing of PEG tube placements by year (2006-2012), rate of placements by year (2001-2012), and length of hospital stay. Univariate analyses and simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: The timing of gastrostomy tube placement remained stable with a median of 7 days post admission from 2006 through 2012. The proportion of tubes that were placed at or after 14 days and thereby met the guideline recommendations varied from 14.09% in 2006 to 13.41% in 2012. The rate of tube placement in stroke patients during the acute hospital stay decreased significantly by 25% from 6.94% in 2001 to 5.22% in 2012 (P < .0001). The length of hospital stay for all stroke patients decreased over the study period (P < .0001). Conclusions: The vast majority of PEG tube placements happen earlier than clinical practice guidelines recommend. Over the study period, the rate of tubes placed in stroke patients decreased during the acute hospital stay despite an overall reduced length of stay.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据