Opinion Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Gastroenterol. May 28, 2020; 26(20): 2464-2471
Published online May 28, 2020. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i20.2464
Table 3 Studies of enteral nutrition with dementia patients in recent years
Ref.DesignNumber of patients with dementiaMain resultsStudy problems/Appraisal
Higaki et al[15], 2008Retrospective cohort study311 (143 with and 168 w/o dementia)No significant differences in survivalNo controls w/o PEG
Suzuki et al[28], 2012Observational study1353Significantly more benefit in patients with early dementiaEndpoint “Level of independent living of demented elderly” not validated, no controls
Ticinesi et al[34], 2016Observational study184 (54 with PEG, 130 w/o PEG)Survival with PEG significantly worseSelection bias, no basic data for PEG-group vs non-PEG-group, patients with advanced dementia had better results compared to those with early dementia
Nunes et al[35], 2016Retrospective observational study46 (only CDR 2 and 3)Low albumin, transferrin and cholesterol as predictors for poor survivalNo controls
Cúrdia et al[36], 2017Prospective cohort study, uncontrolled26 (out of 60 in the whole cohort)Significant decrease in hospitalization and visits to ER, > 50% healing of pressure ulcersOnly internal controls, no dementia grading
Ayman et al[37], 2017Retrospective cohort165, control group with PEG for other reasonsSignificantly shorter survival in dementia patientsNo dementia control group, no dementia rating
Gingold-Belfer et al[38], 2017Retrospective Cohort, uncontrolled189Albumin level associated with longer survival (at baseline as well as during observation)No control group, no dementia rating
Van Bruchem-Visser et al[39], 2019Retrospective cohort42 (out of 303 in the whole cohort), no controls w/o PEGSurvival with PEG significantly shorter in patients with dementiaSelection bias, no dementia rating, PEG-indication partly unclear