When Should the Appropriateness of PEG be Questioned?

• Published in: Current gastroenterology reports 2023, Vol.25 (1), p.13-19
• Main Authors: Roche, Keelin Flannery, Bower, Katie L., Collier, Bryan, Neel, Dustin, Esry, Laura
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdomen; Dementia; Diarrhea; Dysphagia; Endoscopy; Enteral nutrition; Enteral Nutrition - methods; Gastroenterology; Gastrostomy - adverse effects; Gastrostomy - methods; Head & neck cancer; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction - etiology; Medical ethics; Medical futility; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Moral injury; Mortality; Nutrition; Nutrition and Obesity (S McClave and E Omer; Ostomy; Parenteral nutrition; Patients; Proteins; Retrospective Studies; Section Editors; Short Bowel Syndrome; Surgeons; Topical Collection on Nutrition and Obesity
• ISSN: 1522-8037; 1534-312X
• DOI: 10.1007/s11894-022-00857-2

Purpose of Review This review aims to analyze the evidence regarding the appropriateness of PEG placement in the following clinical situations: short bowel syndrome, head and neck cancer, dementia and palliative use in malignant bowel obstruction. Recent Findings Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are placed for a variety of clinical indications by numerous different specialties. First described in 1980, PEG tubes are now the dominant method of enteral access. Typically, PEG tubes are technically feasible procedures that can come with significant risk for both minor and major complications. Therefore, it is important to perform an in-depth, patient specific risk-benefit analysis when considering insertion. Summary By analyzing the current evidence regarding benefits in these situations, superimposed by the lens of biomedical ethics, we make recommendations that are accessible to any provider who may be a consultant or proceduralist, helping to provide informed care that is in the patient’s best interest.