Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 20, No. 3-4, 2002
Issue release date: 2002

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Adequacy and Quality of Information Given to Decision-Makers

Ladas S.D. · Triantafyllou K. · Liappas I. · Hatziargyriou M. · Tzavellas E. · Barbatzas C. · Christodoulou G. · Raptis S.A.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Background/Aim: Nowadays percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is widely available, but patient-selection criteria and quality of informed consent are debated. The aims of this retrospective study were to evaluate the quality of information given to the decision-makers (relatives) and determine the overall acceptance of the procedure by the patients’ family. Methods: The relatives of patients with PEG were interviewed by telephone, using a structured questionnaire. They (n = 55; 36% spouses, 34% children, 30% other) gave information about themselves and the patient (34 males, 21 females, median age 69, range 16–92 years) who underwent PEG tube placement for eating disorders or dysphagia. Results: At the time of evaluation 30/55 (54.6%) patients had died. The cumulative median survival was significantly longer in patients younger than 75 years by 58 days (p = 0.009). Relatives believed that PEG could improve the patients’ quality of life (56%) or/and the underlying disease. Although 93% of the decision-makers considered that their opinion had been taken into account when the procedure was done, 25% said that they had not adequately been informed about alternative methods and the complications of the procedure (38%). 54% said that the procedure had improved the quality of life of the family. Most of the decision-makers believed that their decision was correct (87%) and they would recommend PEG (84%) to other patients suffering from dysphagia. Conclusion: Though several decision-makers were not satisfied with the quality of information given before informed consent, the overall acceptance of the PEG placement for nutritional support is high.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Safadi By, Marks M, Ponsky JL: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: An update. Endoscopy 1998;30:781–789.
  2. Ladas S: Endoscopic percutaneous gastrostomy – Ethical problems. World Gastroenterology News, Spring 2001.
  3. Triantafyllou K, Ladas S: Moral, clinical and legal issues on PEG tube placement for nutritional support; in Stanciu C, Ladas S (eds): Medical Ethics. Focus on Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy. Athens, Beta Medical Arts, 2002, pp 21–26.
  4. Van Rosendaal GMA, Verhoef MJ, Mace SR, Kinsella TD: Decision making and outcomes for percoutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A pilot study. J Clin Gastroenterol 1997;24:71–73.
  5. Brett AS, Rosenberg JC: The adequacy of informed consent for placement of gastrostomy tubes. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:745–748.
  6. Callahan CM, Haag KM, Buchanan NN, Nisis R: Decision-making of pecutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among older adults in a community setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999;47:1105–1109.
  7. Niv Y, Abuksis G: Indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion: Ethical aspects. Dig Dis 2002;20:253–256.
  8. Verhoef MJ, Van Rosendaal GMA: Patients’ outcomes related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001;32:49–53.
  9. Abuksis G, Mor M, Segal N, Shemesh I, Plaut S, Sulkes J, Fraser G, Niv Y: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: High mortality rates in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:128–132.
  10. Abuksis G, Mor M, Plaut S, Fraser G, Niv Y: Delayed insertion of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A prospective controlled study of new approach. Endoscopy 2002;34:760.
  11. Guidelines on the Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Care of the Dying. A Report by the Hastings Center. Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1987.
  12. Light VL, Slezak FA, Porter JA, Gerson LW, McCord G: Predictive factors for early mortality after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:330–335.
  13. Taylor CA, Larson DE, Ballard DJ, Bergstrom LR, Silverstein MD, Zinsmeister AR, DiMagno EP: Predictors of outcome after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A community-based study. Mayo Clin Proc 1992;67:1042–1049.
  14. Van Rosendaal GMA, Verhoef MJ, Kinsella DT: How are decisions made about the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for long-term nutritional support? Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:3225–3228.
  15. O’Brien LA, Siegert EA, Grisso JA, Maislin GM, LaPann K, Evans LK, Krotki KP: Tube feeding preferences among nursing home residents. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:364–371.
  16. Albert SM, Murphy PL, Del Bene ML, Rowland LP: A prospective study of preferences and actual treatment choices in ALS. Neurology 1999;53:278–283.
  17. Kirby DF, Delegge MH, Fleming CR: American Gastrointestinal Association technical review on tube feeding for enteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 1995;108:1282–1301.
  18. Rabeneck L, McCullough LB, Wray NP: Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Lancet 1997;349:496–498.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 33.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 23.00