RESUMO
Choosing to use a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG tube) for long term artificial nutrition in the setting of inadequate oral intake after stroke is complex because the decision must be made in a relatively short amount of time and prognosis is often uncertain. This case study utilized interviews with attending and resident neurologists, and surrogate medical decision makers in order to examine how neurologists and surrogate medical decision makers approached the decision to either receive a PEG tube or pursue comfort measures after severe stroke in two patients. Although these two patients presented with similar clinical characteristics and faced similar medical decisions, different decisions regarding PEG tube placement were made. Major challenges included physicians who did not agree on prognosis and surrogates who did not agree on whether to place a PEG tube. These cases demonstrate the importance of the role of the surrogate medical decision maker and the necessity of physicians and surrogate medical decision makers approaching the complex decision of PEG tube placement after stroke together. Additionally, these cases highlight the differing views on what defines a good quality of life and show the vital importance of high-quality goals of care conversations about prognosis and quality of life when deciding whether to place a PEG tube after severe stroke.