Parenteral nutrition in children with severe neurodisability: a panacea?

Parenteral Nutrition in Pediatric Patients with Neurodisability: Current Perspectives

Pediatric neurodisability describes functional limitations in children with varied severity and complexity often attributed to brain or neuromuscular abnormalities. The life expectancy of children with neurodisability is improving, but many will require significant medical support. The gastrointestinal tract is usually affected in children with neurodisability and can lead to a wide range of symptoms. In gastrointestinal (GI) dystonia, a newly coined term, feeding will trigger a distressing dystonia and symptoms can improve with cessation of feed. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is often viewed as a viable option in severe GI dystonia or when enteral feeding does not support sufficient nutrition. The use of PN in children with severe neurodisability is complex. It involves an intricate interplay between medical, psychological and ethical factors. In the absence of a universally agreed guidance on the use of PN in this cohort, paediatricians should maintain the individual need of the child at the centre of the decision-making process and work closely with families and other healthcare professionals before initiating or withholding PN in children with severe neurodisability. In this article, we discuss the complex and multifaceted approach to the use of PN in children with severe neurodisability and aimed to explore the medical, psychological and ethical aspect dilemmas facing clinicians looking after children with declining gut function who may require PN support.

Crossing the line? Ethics of parenteral nutrition in paediatric neurodisability complicated by intestinal failure

Children with severe neurological impairment (such as cerebral palsy or congenital anomalies) are living longer, although medically complex, lives. Feeding intolerance is an increasing problem that is emerging as a new end-of-life issue. Long-term parenteral nutrition (LTPN) is technically feasible in these children. However, clinicians are concerned about whether it is appropriate in these circumstances or whether it constitutes a treatment 'too far'. This narrative review of the literature identifies, categorises and explores the ethical foundations and reasons for clinician hesitancy about the use of LTPN in this population. The categories of reasons are: lack of clear diagnostic criteria for feeding failure; risks of LTPN to the child; burden of LTPN to the family/caregivers; burden of LTPN to the child; difficulty in cessation of LTPN; and the concept that feeding failure may be a preterminal sign. These reasons are all ultimately about risks and burden outweighing the benefits. We argue that the risks of LTPN have decreased over time, the burden for individual children and their parents may be less than imagined, and the benefit is a realistic prospect. Case-by-case consideration, giving due weight to child and parental perspectives, can show that LTPN is ethically justified for some children with severe neurological impairment.