Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has become an important cornerstone of symptomatic treatment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), improving survival and quality of life. In this review, we summarize the most important recent developments and insights, including evidence of efficacy, indication criteria and time of initiation, ventilation parameters and adaptation strategies, treatment of complicating factors, transition from NIV to invasive ventilation, termination of NIV and end-of-life management. Recent publications have questioned former conventions and guideline recommendations, especially with regard to timing and prognostic factors; therefore, a fresh look and re-evaluation of current evidence is needed.
Objective: Quantitative analysis of decision-making on therapeutic options in different sociocultural context in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Methods: ALS patients (n = 244) were consecutively recruited in Germany (n = 83), Poland (n = 83), and Sweden (n = 78) in a prospective cross-cultural study (www.NEEDSinALS.com). They were interviewed on preferences for therapeutic techniques including invasive (IV) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV), as well as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and on hypothetical termination of these using quantitative questions. Using standardized questionnaires, religiousness, personal values, quality of life, and depressiveness were assessed.
Results: NIV was most frequently used in Germany and PEG in Sweden. Swedish patients were most liberal on initiation and termination of PEG, NIV and IV. Polish patients were mostly undecided and were least likely to consider discontinuing supportive management. Current use was partly associated with age, gender and state of physical function; also, financial support explained some variance. Future preferences on therapeutic options from the patient’s perspective were also closely associated with cultural factors. The more oriented towards traditional and conservative values, the less likely patients were to decide for invasive therapeutic devices (IV, PEG), the least likely to have ideations to discontinue any device and the more likely to have an undecided attitude.
Conclusions: Current use of therapeutic options is determined by medical condition in analogy to clinical guidelines. For future considerations, other factors such as cultural background are crucial, yielding hurdles to be regarded in the implementation of advanced directives in a multicultural environment.