A propensity-matched comparison of cost and outcomes after esophageal stent placement or primary surgical repair for iatrogenic esophageal perforation.

OBJECTIVES: Esophageal stent placement has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for acute esophageal perforation in selected patients. However, a comparison between surgical repair and stent placement has not been reported. This investigation compares the outcomes and costs of the 2 treatment modalities.
METHODS: The Premiere database for a single health system's hospitals was used to identify patients undergoing treatment for an acute intrathoracic esophageal perforation over a 4-year period. Patient cohorts for stent placement or surgical repair were formed using propensity matching. The 2 cohorts were compared for length of stay, morbidity, mortality, and costs.
RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2012, 60 patients undergoing esophageal stent placement or surgical repair were propensity matched. Mean patient age and Charlson comorbidity scores did not differ significantly (P = .4 and P = .4, respectively). Significant differences in morbidity (4% vs 43%; P = .02), mean length of stay (6 vs 11 days; P = .0007), time to oral intake (3 vs 8 days; P = .0004), and cost ($91,000 vs $142,000; P < .0001) were identified in the esophageal stent cohort when compared with patients receiving surgical repair. Operative mortality did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal stent placement for the treatment of an acute esophageal perforation seems to be as effective as surgical repair when compared between propensity-matched patients. However, stent placement resulted in a shorter length of stay, lower rates of morbidity, and lower costs when compared with traditional surgical repair.