Nutrición parenteral domiciliaria en pacientes con obstrucción intestinal maligna. Consideraciones éticas.

Background: patients with cancer are one of the main group of patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) represent a challenging group when considering HPN. At the Ethics Working Group of SENPE ethical considerations on this subject were reviewed and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Moreno Villares JM, Virgili-Casas MN, Ashbaugh Enguídanos R, Wanden-Berghe C, Cantón Blanco A, Álvarez Hernández J, Bretón I, Del Olmo D, Ferrero López I, Lozano Fuster FM, Molina Soria JB
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Institución:Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO)
Repositorio:r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica
OAI Identifier:oai:fisabio.fundanetsuite.com:p16076
Acceso en línea:https://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/16076
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Obstrucción intestinal maligna. Nutrición parenteral domiciliaria. Cáncer avanzado. Futilidad. Cuidados paliativos.
Descripción
Sumario:Background: patients with cancer are one of the main group of patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) represent a challenging group when considering HPN. At the Ethics Working Group of SENPE ethical considerations on this subject were reviewed and a guidelines proposal was made. Methods: a literature search was done and a full set of questions arose: When, if ever, is HPN indicated for patients with MBO? How should the training program be? When withdrawal of HPN should be considered? Other questions should be also taken into consideration. May any Oncologist send home a patient with HPN? The educational program could be shortened? When considering to withdraw parenteral nutrition? Results: HPN in MBO has better outcomes when patients have a good functional status (Karnofsky = 50 or ECOG = 2), expected survival > 2-3 months, and low inflammatory markers. Very few data have been reported on quality of life, but HPN allows a valuable time at home albeit with a considerable burden for both patients and their families. Proposal: once a patient is considered for HPN, there is a need for a deep talk on the benefits, complications and risks. In this initial talk, when HNP should be stopped needs to be included. The palliative care team with the help of the nutrition support team should follow the patient, whose clinical status must be assessed regularly. HPN should be withdrawn when no additional benefits are achieved. Conclusion: HPN may be considered an option in patients with MBO when they have a fair or good functional status and a desire to spend their last days at home.