[Is invasive therapy (medically/ethically) justifiable nearing an end of life situation, if it is based on symptom control and quality of life?]. / Ist invasive Therapie am Lebensende medizinisch und ethisch vertretbar, wenn Symptomkontrolle und Verbesserung der Lebensqualität im Vordergrund stehen?

On the basis of a case study, the complex problems of an invasive therapy (gastroscopy with stentig) in an end of life situation will be demonstrated and discussed. The main problems of the 67-year-old patient with a gastric cardia carcinoma were the symptoms of nausea and vomiting, which were managed well with conservative treatment. The wish from the patient to eat was a highly ethical demand on the team of the palliative care unit. This paper shows the area of tension between the highly developed interventional endoscopic capabilities on the one hand and the reasonable treatment in end of life situations on the other.

Should they have a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy? the importance of assessing decision-making capacity and the central role of a multidisciplinary team.

Decisions about percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can be clinically and ethically challenging, particularly when patients lack decision-making capacity. As the age of the UK population rises, with the associated increase in prevalence of dementias and neurodegenerative diseases, it is becoming an increasingly important issue for clinicians. The recent review and subsequent withdrawal of the Liverpool Care Pathway highlighted feeding as a particular area of concern. The authors undertook a 1-year retrospective review of individuals referred to the feeding issues multidisciplinary team (FIMDT) at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK, in 2011. The majority of patients referred (n = 158) had a primary diagnosis of cancer (44%). The second largest group was those who had had a stroke or brain haemorrhage (13%). Twenty-eight per cent of patients had no, or uncertain, decision-making capacity on at least one occasion during decision-making. There are reflections on the role of a multidisciplinary team in the process of decision-making for these complex patients.

[Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in Iceland over 10 year period: a retrospective study of indications, complications and ethical issues]. / Magaraufun um húd med hjálp speglunar á Íslandi 2000-2009: Ábendingar, fylgikvillar og sidferdileg álitamál.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred method for long term enteral feeding. No nationwide study has reported on the experience and outcome of PEG procedure. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency, indications, complications, mortality and ethical issues related to PEG procedures in Iceland. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on all adult patients who had PEG procedures in Iceland between 2000-2009. Medical charts from patients found were reviewed and data regarding demographics, indications, complications, mortality and ethically controversial cases was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients had PEG procedures during the 10 year study period. There were 163 men and 115 women with a median age of 70 years. The mean annual incidence of PEG procedures was 12.8/100.000. Sufficient medical data for evaluation was obtained from 263 patients. The most common indications were neurological disorders (61%) and malignancies (13%). Dementia accounted for only 0.8% of the indications. Total complication rate was 6.5% with 1.9% being major and 4.6% minor complications. Peritonitis was the most common (2.7%) complication followed by peristomal skin infection (1.9%). Operative mortality was 0.8% and 30 day mortality rate was 13%. In seven (2.7%) cases the PEG procedure was considered to be ethically and medically controversial. CONCLUSION: This is the first published nationwide study on the experience of PEG procedures. The complication and mortality rates in Iceland are among the lowest reported. The indications reported here are in agreement with national guidelines with the rate of PEG procedures in ethically controversial cases being very rare.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in hospitalized incompetent geriatric patients: poorly informed, constrained and paradoxical decisions.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in demented older people has increased in recent years. Several reports indicate flaws in the criteria for performing PEG and in the decision-making process, raising concerns about the adequacy of the consent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and attitudes of referring doctors and gastroenterologists, and to evaluate attitudes and feelings of family members concerning PEG insertion. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 72 doctors who referred 126 demented patients for PEG, as well as 126 family members and 34 gastroenterologists. Closed-ended questionnaires were designed for each study group, completed by the participants, and computer analyzed. RESULTS: Approximately 50% of family members expressed dissatisfaction with the decision-making process. Referring physicians reported that PEG insertion was often dictated by the need to transfer patients to a nursing home, with 50% admitting institutional pressure. Most of the referring physicians believed that PEG improved quality of life and increased longevity, whereas gastroenterologists did not expect an improved quality of life and thought that administrative demands should not intervene in the decision to insert PEG. CONCLUSIONS: The decision-making process in the patient's families regarding PEG insertion for their demented relative is unsatisfactory, often takes place under pressure, and does not provide sufficient information about the procedure or its complications. Interpersonal communication between the patient's family and the medical team needs to be improved, and institutional demands should not play a major role in the medical decision to insert PEG. Gastroenterologists should take a more active role in the deliberations regarding PEG.

Ethical aspects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement for artificial nutrition and hydratation.

Of the many decisions that family members and physicians must make about medical care in patients with advanced disease and perceived poor quality of life, none is more heart-wrenching than the decision about artificial nutrition and hydratation. The endoscopist often is placed in a precarious position when percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement is requested in such patients. Clinical decision-making between the patient, the family and the physician should be consistent with legal and ethical principles. The purpose of this article is to provide an evaluation of medical and ethical issues regarding the decision on placing a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for various indications, as well as suggesting strategies to optimize the decision-making process.

Ethical challenges of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a widely used procedure for patients who cannot swallow. Although it is mostly performed for valid indications, its use in terminally ill patients is questionable. In this study, more than 30% of patients died in hospital after PEG placement and 16% died less than 30 days after placement. Strict guidelines and oversight or PEG placement are recommended.

To PEG or not to PEG.

Patients with adequate intestinal function who are unable to eat may benefit from enteral tube feeding. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is preferred when prolonged treatment is envisaged. PEG feeding will reduce morbidity and mortality in many such patients by reversing malnutrition. The increasing numbers of elderly patients with chronic diseases have resulted in an increased demand for PEG placement that has stretched resources. Many patients who are referred for PEGs are frail and the procedure is associated with complications. Careful management and support for the carers in the community are essential. Not all patients benefit from PEG feeding. The aim must be an improvement in the quality of life, not a prolongation of terminal disease.

Indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion: ethical aspects.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a popular technique for long-term enteral nutrition. However it is not beneficial in all cases, and may even prolong the process of dying. The present article discusses the main indications for PEG insertion, and the ethical considerations involved. Three main questions need to be answered: (1) for what purposes should PEG be used; (2) for what type of patients, and (3) when should PEG be inserted in the natural history of the patient's illness? PEG is used in patients unable to maintain sufficient oral intake. It has been found to improve quality of life and/or to increase survival in patients with head and neck cancer, acute stroke, neurogenic and muscle dystrophy syndrome, growth failure (children) and gastric decompression. It led to no improvement in nutritional or functional status in patients with cachexia, anorexia, aspiration (and aspiration pneumonia), and cancer with a short life expectancy. Several court decisions have stipulated that PEG need be offered in patients in a persistent vegetative state or patients with senile dementia who have lost the ability for self-determination. Since the 30-day mortality after PEG insertion is very high for patients hospitalized in a general medical center, a 'cooling off' period of 30-60 days should be scheduled from the time of the PEG request to actual insertion.