A risk stratifying tool to facilitate safe late-stage percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in ALS

18Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The safety of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) insertion in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients with significant respiratory compromise has been questioned. Objectives: To review the characteristics of an ALS clinic patient cohort undergoing PEG, and the introduction of a risk stratification tool with procedural adaptations for higher-risk individuals. Methods: Patients undergoing PEG insertion were analysed (n = 107). Cases stratified as higher-risk underwent insertion in a semi-recumbent position, minimising sedation, with the option of nasal non-invasive ventilation. Results: All underwent successful PEG. One-third had pre-procedure FVC ≤50% (mean, 64 ± 22%). Of those who underwent PEG insertion after introduction of risk stratification (n = 58), 39 (67%) met criteria for being higher risk, 16 (41%) of whom had FVC ≤50% (p = 0.005). High-risk patients received lower sedative doses vs. the low-risk group (midazolam 2.1 ± 1.1 vs.2.8 ± 0.95mg, p = 0.021; fentanyl 42 ± 16 vs. 60 ± 21μg, p = 0.015). Four deaths occurred within one month of insertion (attributable to the natural disease course). Conclusions: Risk stratification identified a greater number of patients with evidence of respiratory compromise than using the sole criterion of FVC ≤50%. A modified PEG procedure enabled safe insertion despite respiratory compromise, in those who might not have tolerated attempted insertion by alternative means such as radiologically-inserted gastrostomy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thompson, A. G., Blackwell, V., Marsden, R., Millard, E., Lawson, C., Nickol, A. H., … Turner, M. R. (2017). A risk stratifying tool to facilitate safe late-stage percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in ALS. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, 18(3–4), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2016.1274330

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free