SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Frequency and outcome of PEG tube implantations in hospitalized Parkinson's disease patients.

Parkinsonism Relat Disord · 2026-08-09

DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2026.108921PMID: 42574866

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundDysphagia is a known complication of Parkinson's Disease (PD). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is a therapy for select patients with dysphagia. There is a paucity of information on the role of PEG in PD management.ObjectivesTo investigate the frequency and outcomes of PEG tube implantations in hospitalized patients with PD.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database of hospitalized PD patients between 2017 and 2023. PEG implantation, discharge status, and aspiration pneumonia (AP) diagnoses were collected and analyzed. The relationships between AP and PEG were evaluated using logistic regression. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to account for repeated hospitalizations and were adjusted for covariates. Odds ratios were calculated.ResultsThere were 321,967 hospitalizations analyzed. The frequency of PEG tube placement was 1.88%. PEG implantation was associated with higher odds of AP diagnosis (OR 8.52, 95% CI 8.07-9.00; p ConclusionsThis is the largest study of the frequency and outcomes of PEG implantation in a cohort of hospitalized PD patients. PEG implantation was associated with AP and, in adjusted GEE models, those with PEG placement were less likely to be discharged to hospice or to die in the hospital.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.