Cases
Consults for percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement for a patient ...
- With dysphagia after stroke: A 70-year-old female with a history of hypertension presented to the hospital with altered mental status and left-sided weakness. She was previously active and independently living. MRI of the brain revealed a right basal ganglia infarct. As a result, she developed dysphagia. She was evaluated by speech and language pathology and underwent a modified barium swallow. Given concerns for aspiration, the recommendation was made for gastroenterology (GI) consultation to place PEG tube for nutrition and medication administration.
- With advanced dementia: An 85-year-old male with an extensive medical history including advanced dementia was admitted from his nursing home for decreased oral intake. His baseline mental status is awake and alert, but he is nonverbal and does not follow commands. Upon 72-hour calorie count, the nutrition consultants determined that he cannot independently meet his nutrition goals. His family wants “everything done” and are asking about a “feeding tube.” The primary team has now consulted GI for PEG tube placement.
- Who is being discharged to a long-term care facility: A 45-year-old male was admitted to the ICU after a heroin overdose. CPR was initiated in the field and return of spontaneous circulation was obtained after 25 minutes. The patient has minimal brainstem reflexes. He is ventilator dependent. He has no family, and now is status-post tracheostomy placement by two-physician consent. The patient is ready for discharge to a long-term care facility that will not accept patients with nasogastric tubes. GI is consulted for PEG tube placement.
Discussion
Gastroenterologists are often consulted for PEG tube placement. However, This is rooted in the fact that, as one expert wrote, “feeding, unlike any other medical treatment, has a moral and emotional significance derived from culture.”1 Understanding the evidence, ethical considerations, and team dynamic behind PEG tube placement is critical for every gastroenterologist. Herein we review these topics and offer guidelines for having patient-centered conversations involving these fundamental concepts.
Dr. Emily Seltzer
courtesy Paul Nguyen
First, the gastroenterologist should understand the evidence to debunk myths and clarify truths surrounding PEG tube placement. While PEG tubes may help patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis stabilize their weight and can even be prophylactically placed in select patients with head and neck cancer,2,3 they are not always appropriate in patients in early recovery from stroke and have not been shown to improve outcomes in patients with advanced dementia. At least 50% of stroke-related dysphagia resolves within 1-2 weeks, and so the American Heart Association Stroke Council recommends continuing nasogastric tube feeding for 2-3 weeks in patients such as the one presented in case 1 before considering PEG tube placement.4
In situations of advanced dementia such as in case,2 several studies demonstrate that PEG tubes do not reduce or prevent aspiration pneumonia, prevent consequences of malnutrition, prolong life, reduce pressure ulcers, reduce urinary of gastrointestinal tract infections, lead to functional improvement, mitigate decline, or even improve comfort or quality of life for patients or their caregivers.5-7 Despite this evidence, as demonstrated in case,3 it is true that many American skilled nursing facilities will not accept a patient without a PEG if enteral feeding is needed. This restriction may vary by state: One study found that skilled nursing facilities in New York City are much less likely to accept patients with nasogastric feeding tubes than randomly selected skilled nursing facilities throughout the country.6 Nonetheless, gastroenterologists should look to the literature to understand the outcomes of populations of patients after PEG tube placement and use that data to guide decision-making.
courtesy Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center
Dr. Antoinette Pusateri
Secondly, the five ethical principles that inform all medical decision making – autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and futility – should also inform the gastroenterologist’s rationale in offering PEG placement.8
Autonomy implies that the medical team has determined who is able to make the decision regarding PEG tube placement for the patient. Beneficence connects the patient’s medical diagnosis and technical parameters of PEG tube placement with his or her goals of care. Nonmaleficence ensures the decision-making party understands the benefits and risks of the procedure, including anticipatory guidance on possible PEG tube management, complications, risks, and need for replacement. Justice incorporates the context of the patient’s life, including family dynamics, religious, cultural, and financial factors. Futility connects the patient’s prognosis with practical aspects of having a PEG tube.
The complexity of PEG placement lies in the fact that these ethical principles are often at odds with each other. For example, case 2 highlights the conflicting principles of autonomy and futility for elderly dementia patients: While PEG tube placements do not improve comfort or quality of life in advanced dementia (futility), the family representing the patient has stated they want everything done for his care, including PEG tube placement (autonomy). Navigating these ethical principles can be difficult, but having a framework to organize the different factors offers sound guidance for the gastroenterologist.
courtesy Rusty Schramm
Dr. Anh Nguyen
Finally, the gastroenterologist should recognize the roles of the multidisciplinary team members, including the patient and their representatives, regarding PEG tube placement consults. While gastroenterologists can be viewed as the technicians consulted to simply “place the tube,” they must seek to understand the members of the team representing the patient to be stewards of their skill set. Consulting team physicians carry great responsibility in organizing the medical and psychosocial aspects of each patient’s care, and their proper goals to relieve suffering and prevent death may color their judgment regarding who they believe is a candidate for a PEG tube. Nutritionists, speech therapists, and case managers can help provide objective data on the practicality and feasibility of a PEG tube in their patients. The healthcare system may influence the decision to consult heavily, as seen in the rules of the long-term care facility in case.3 While it is the job of the multidisciplinary medical team to explain the evidence and ethical considerations of PEG tube placement in a patient-centered manner, ultimately the decision belongs to the patient and their family or representatives.
The moral burden of not pursuing PEG placement may supersede the medical advice in many situations. There is an emotionally taxing perception that withholding nutrition via PEG is “starving the patient,” despite literature showing many terminally ill patients do not experience thirst or hunger, and those who do have alleviation of these symptoms with small amounts of food or liquid, not with PEG placement.5 As every patient is unique, PEG tube consultation guidelines created with input from all stakeholders have been utilized to ensure that patients are medically optimized for PEG tube placement and that evidence and ethics-based considerations are evaluated by the multidisciplinary team. An example of such a guideline is shown in Figure 1.
courtesy Dr. Emily Seltzer
Figure 1. Navigating Percutaneous Gastrostomy Tube Placements: A Reference Guide for Gastroenterologists
If the gastroenterologist encounters more contentious consultations, there are ways to build consensus to both alleviate patient and family suffering as well as elevate the discussions between teams.
First, identify the type of consult that is repeatedly bringing differing viewpoints and differing ethical principles into play. Second, get representatives from teams together in a neutral environment to understand stakeholders needs. New data suggest, in stroke cases like case 1, there may be dramatic benefit in long-term ability to recover if patients can get early intensive rehabilitation.9 This intense daily rehabilitation is not available within the hospital setting at many locations, and facilitation of discharge may be requested earlier than usually advised tube placement. Third, build a common language for requests and responses between teams. For instance, neurologists can identify and document which patients have less likelihood of early spontaneous recovery, and this can allow gastroenterologists to understand that those patients with little potential for early swallowing recovery can safely be targeted for PEG earlier during the hospital course. Other patients described as having a potential for spontaneous improvement should be given time to recover before an intervention is considered.10 Having a common understanding of goals and a better-informed decision pathway helps each team member feel fulfilled and rewarded, which will ultimately help reduce compassion fatigue and moral burden on providers.
courtesy Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital
Dr. Ellen Stein
In conclusion, PEG tube placement can be a challenging consultation for gastroenterologists because of the clinical, social, and ethical ramifications at stake for the patient. Even when PEG tube placement is technically feasible, the gastroenterologist should feel empowered to address the evidence-based outcomes of PEG tube placement, discuss the ethical principles of the decision-making process, and communicate with a multidisciplinary team using guidelines as set forth by this paper to best serve the patient.
Dr. Seltzer is based in the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside-West, New York City. Dr. Pusateri is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Dr. Nguyen is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Center for Esophageal Diseases, Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Stein is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. All authors contributed equally to this manuscript, and have no disclosures related to this article.
References
1. Mackie S. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2001 May-Jun;24(3):138-42.
2. Miller RG et al. Neurology. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181bc0141.
3. Colevas AD et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 May. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0026.
4. Holloway RG et al. Stroke. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000015.
5. Finucane TE et al. JAMA. 1999 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.14.1365.
6. Burgermaster M et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1177/0884533616629636.
7. American Geriatrics Society Ethics C, Clinical P, Models of Care C. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Aug. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12924.
8. Beauchamp TL. Principlism in Bioethics. In: Serna P, eds. Bioethical Decision Making and Argumentation. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 70. Springer; Cham. 2016 Sept:1-16. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43419-3_1.
9. Powers WJ et al. Stroke. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000211.
10. Galovic M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 May. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4858.
