Perspective and quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Résumé fourni par la source

Introduction Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is commonly used to manage dysphagia and nutritional failure, which are among the most frequent and severe complications of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). While several studies assessed PEG indications, outcomes, and prognostic factors, there is no evidence regarding ALS patients’ perspectives and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with PEG. Methods This study included 48 consecutive ALS patients. At the 1-month follow-up after PEG, patients and their caregivers completed a PEG satisfaction questionnaire regarding their decision to proceed with the PEG-tube placement. HRQoL was assessed using the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). Results In total, 77.1% of patients and 88.9% of caregivers confirmed that they would prefer to have a PEG tube placed again if required ( p > 0.001); 93.8% of patients felt that PEG made feeding easier, exerting a positive effect on overall wellbeing (83.3%) and increasing survival rates (93.8%) ( p > 0.001); 54.2% felt that PEG was cosmetically acceptable. Consistent positive rates were reported by caregivers. The GIQLI digestion subscale values significantly improved from baseline (28.3; SD = 6.6) to discharge (30.97, SD = 5.84) and were maintained at 1-month follow-up (30.21, SD = 6.7; p = 0.014). Conversely, in follow-up assessments, we observed a significant reduction in the SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) subscale (baseline = 33.3; 1-month follow-up = 28.61; p = 0.032), which was accompanied by a significant worsening in the GIQLI physical dimension subscale (baseline = 9.63; 1-month follow-up = 7.38; p = 0.044). Discussion This study provides preliminary evidence that ALS patients have a positive perspective on PEG positioning, which may also have a beneficial effect on HRQoL related to gastrointestinal function.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.