BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment for esophageal perforation with stenting is an alternative to surgery. There is no data on the impact of timing of esophageal stent placement and outcomes in patients with esophageal perforation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the significance of timing of esophageal stent placement on short-term (30-day complications) and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal perforation. METHODS: Patients with esophageal perforations who underwent endoscopic treatment with stenting from 2007 to 2012 at the Cleveland Clinic were included for the study. Main outcomes measurements were impact of time to esophageal stent placement on 30-day complications and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (males 40 % and females 60 %) were included. Mean age was 72.5 ± 10 years. The most common etiology for perforation was iatrogenic after endoscopy procedure in 10 (50 %) patients. The stent was in place for a median of 24.6 days in our cohort. Eight patients (40 %) had stent placement within 24 h, while the remaining 12 patients (60 %) had stent placement after 24 h. The mortality rate due to perforation related causes was 10 % (2/20) in our study. The 30-day complication rate was 10 %; 1 with stent migration and the other with chest pain. The 30-day readmission rates excluding patients who died during the initial hospitalization were 10 %. On long-term follow-up, 30 % complication rates were encountered; 3 (15 %) stent migrations, 2 (10 %) patients presented with hematemesis, and 1 (5 %) with chest pain. The timing of stent placement (within 24 h or later) did not impact the risk of complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.13, 95 % confidence interval 0.1-8.9, P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic stent placement is safe and effective for treating esophageal perforations. However, the timing of stent placement on outcomes remains unclear.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment for esophageal perforation with stenting is an alternative to surgery. There is no data on the impact of timing of esophageal stent placement and outcomes in patients with esophageal perforation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the significance of timing of esophageal stent placement on short-term (30-day complications) and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal perforation. METHODS:Patients with esophageal perforations who underwent endoscopic treatment with stenting from 2007 to 2012 at the Cleveland Clinic were included for the study. Main outcomes measurements were impact of time to esophageal stent placement on 30-day complications and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (males 40 % and females 60 %) were included. Mean age was 72.5 ± 10 years. The most common etiology for perforation was iatrogenic after endoscopy procedure in 10 (50 %) patients. The stent was in place for a median of 24.6 days in our cohort. Eight patients (40 %) had stent placement within 24 h, while the remaining 12 patients (60 %) had stent placement after 24 h. The mortality rate due to perforation related causes was 10 % (2/20) in our study. The 30-day complication rate was 10 %; 1 with stent migration and the other with chest pain. The 30-day readmission rates excluding patients who died during the initial hospitalization were 10 %. On long-term follow-up, 30 % complication rates were encountered; 3 (15 %) stent migrations, 2 (10 %) patients presented with hematemesis, and 1 (5 %) with chest pain. The timing of stent placement (within 24 h or later) did not impact the risk of complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.13, 95 % confidence interval 0.1-8.9, P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic stent placement is safe and effective for treating esophageal perforations. However, the timing of stent placement on outcomes remains unclear.
Authors: Fausto Biancari; Juha Saarnio; Ari Mennander; Linda Hypén; Paulina Salminen; Kari Kuttila; Mikael Victorzon; Camilla Böckelman; Enrico Tarantino; Olivier Tiffet; Vesa Koivukangas; Jon Arne Søreide; Asgaut Viste; Luigi Bonavina; Halla Vidarsdóttir; Tomas Gudbjartsson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Andreas Fischer; Oliver Thomusch; Stefan Benz; Ernst von Dobschuetz; Peter Baier; Ulrich T Hopt Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Peter D Siersema; Marjolein Y V Homs; Jelle Haringsma; Huug W Tilanus; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Petra G A van Boeckel; Kulwinder S Dua; Bas L A M Weusten; Ruben J H Schmits; Naveen Surapaneni; Robin Timmer; Frank P Vleggaar; Peter D Siersema Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Fausto Biancari; Tuomas Tauriainen; Tatu Ylikotila; Misa Kokkonen; Jukka Rintala; Elisa Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck; Vesa Koivukangas; Juha Saarnio Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sivesh K Kamarajah; James Bundred; Gary Spence; Andrew Kennedy; Bobby V M Dasari; Ewen A Griffiths Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.352