BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) allows long-term tube feeding. Safety of pull-type and introducer PEG placement in oncology patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies is unknown.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing PEG tube placement between January 2006 and December 2008 revealed 57 oncology patients. All patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancy were treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. In case of high-grade stenosis introducer Freka® Pexact PEG tube was placed (n = 24) and in all other patients (n = 33) conventional pull-type PEG tube. Short-term complications and mortality rates were compared.ResultsPatients' characteristics and clinical status were comparable in both groups. Short-term complications were encountered in 11/24 (48%) introducer PEG patients as compared to only 4/33 (12%) pull-type PEG patients (P < 0.05). Accidental removal of the introducer PEG tube occurred in 4/24 (17%) with need for surgical intervention in 1 vs. 0/33 (0%, P < 0.05). Wound infection occurred in 3/24 (12%) leading to septic shock and admission to intensive care unit (ICU) in 1 vs. 3/33 (9%, NS). Finally, 3/24 gastrointestinal perforations (12%) resulted from a difficult placement procedure vs. 1/33 (3%), leading to urgent surgical intervention and admission to ICU. Two introducer PEG patients died at ICU, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 8% vs. 0% (P = 0.091).ConclusionThe introducer Freka® Pexact PEG procedure for long-term tube feeding may lead to significantly higher complication and mortality rates in patients with head/neck or oesophageal malignancies treated with chemo- and radiotherapy. It is suggested to use the conventional pull-type PEG tube placement in this group of patients, if possible.

Medical care systems will be overwhelmed if a human H5N1 pandemic should occur. Several national disaster plans, including that of Belgium, focus on maximal treatment at home with senior medical students supporting frontline care. To evaluate the knowledge and preparedness of Belgian senior medical students, an e-mail survey of senior medical students (last two years of education) attending Flemish universities was conducted.A total of 243 students (30%) replied. Only 21.8% of them were aware of the possibility of being involved in this planning. A total of 77.4% estimated H5N1 to be a possible threat to national health. Seventy percent of respon-dents reacted positively towards the idea of being involved in implementing primary care, and only 9.5% were absolutely opposed to the idea. A total of 82.3% would care for pandemic patients if necessary, but only 41.2% would do so if these patients were children. Only 18.9% estimated themselves to be suf-ficiently educated regarding H5N1. Ninety-one percent were convinced that care for H5N1-influenza patients should be incorporated into their regular curriculum. Several antiviral products were reported by the students to be effi-cient for treating H5N1, but only 34.6% correctly chose oseltamavir and/or zanamavir and 35.4% replied “I don't know”. A total of 95.5% correctly answered that the regular influenza vaccination doesn't protect against H5N1. The risk for human-to-human transmission was rated to be small by 50.6% (none 21%, high 27.6%). The human infection risk was rated to be small by 74.1% (none 1.6%, high 23%).There is a high level of willingness to participate among senior medical students. However, in the case of pediatric patients they're more reserved. It would be useful to incorporate a focused session on preparedness in the regular teaching program. A legal base for their actions should also be provided. Ethical guidelines on rights and duties in case of a pandemic should be prepared by an international, multidisciplinary group of experts.