Michael Tachezy1, Seung-Hun Chon2, Isabel Rieck3, Marcus Kantowski4, Hildegard Christ5, Karl Karstens1, Florian Gebauer2, Tobias Goeser3, Thomas Rösch4, Jakob R Izbicki1, Christiane J Bruns6. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Institute of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 6. Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. Christiane.bruns@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Intrathoracic anastomotic leaks represent a major complication after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. There are two promising endoscopic treatment strategies in the case of leaks: the placement of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) or endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT). Up to date, there is no prospective data concerning the optimal endoscopic treatment strategy. This is a protocol description for the ESOLEAK trial, which is a first small phase 2 randomized trial evaluating the quality of life after treatment of anastomotic leaks by either SEMS placement or EVT. METHODS: This phase 2 randomized trial will be conducted at two German tertiary medical centers and include a total of 40 patients within 2 years. Adult patients with histologically confirmed esophageal cancer, who have undergone Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and show an esophagogastric anastomotic leak on endoscopy or present with typical clinical signs linked to an anastomotic leak, will be included in our study taking into consideration the exclusion criteria. After endoscopic verification of the anastomotic leak, patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two treatment groups. The intervention group will receive EVT whereas the control group will be treated with SEMS. The primary endpoint of this study is the subjective quality of life assessed by the patient using a systematic and validated questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30, EORTC QLQ-OES18 questionnaire). Important secondary endpoints are healing rate, period of hospitalization, treatment-related complications, and overall mortality. DISCUSSION: The latest meta-analysis comparing implantation of SEMS with EVT in the treatment of esophageal anastomotic leaks suggested a higher success rate for EVT. The ESOLEAK trial is the first study comparing both treatments in a prospective manner. The aim of the trial is to find suitable endpoints for the treatment of anastomotic leaks as well as to enable an adequate sample size calculation and evaluate the feasibility of future interventional trials. Due to the exploratory design of this pilot study, the sample size is too small to answer the question, whether EVT or SEMS implantation represents the superior treatment strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03962244 . Registered on May 23, 2019. DRKS-ID DRKS00007941.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intrathoracic anastomotic leaks represent a major complication after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. There are two promising endoscopic treatment strategies in the case of leaks: the placement of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) or endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT). Up to date, there is no prospective data concerning the optimal endoscopic treatment strategy. This is a protocol description for the ESOLEAK trial, which is a first small phase 2 randomized trial evaluating the quality of life after treatment of anastomotic leaks by either SEMS placement or EVT. METHODS: This phase 2 randomized trial will be conducted at two German tertiary medical centers and include a total of 40 patients within 2 years. Adult patients with histologically confirmed esophageal cancer, who have undergone Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and show an esophagogastric anastomotic leak on endoscopy or present with typical clinical signs linked to an anastomotic leak, will be included in our study taking into consideration the exclusion criteria. After endoscopic verification of the anastomotic leak, patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two treatment groups. The intervention group will receive EVT whereas the control group will be treated with SEMS. The primary endpoint of this study is the subjective quality of life assessed by the patient using a systematic and validated questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30, EORTC QLQ-OES18 questionnaire). Important secondary endpoints are healing rate, period of hospitalization, treatment-related complications, and overall mortality. DISCUSSION: The latest meta-analysis comparing implantation of SEMS with EVT in the treatment of esophageal anastomotic leaks suggested a higher success rate for EVT. The ESOLEAK trial is the first study comparing both treatments in a prospective manner. The aim of the trial is to find suitable endpoints for the treatment of anastomotic leaks as well as to enable an adequate sample size calculation and evaluate the feasibility of future interventional trials. Due to the exploratory design of this pilot study, the sample size is too small to answer the question, whether EVT or SEMS implantation represents the superior treatment strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03962244 . Registered on May 23, 2019. DRKS-ID DRKS00007941.
Authors: H Messmann; Werner Schmidbaur; Jürgen Jäckle; Alois Fürst; I Iesalnieks Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.043
Authors: Peter P Grimminger; Lucas Goense; Ines Gockel; Damien Bergeat; Nicolas Bertheuil; Servarayan M Chandramohan; Ke-Neng Chen; Seung-Hon Chon; Collet Denis; Khean-Lee Goh; Caroline Gronnier; Jun-Feng Liu; Bernard Meunier; Phillippe Nafteux; Enrique D Pirchi; Marc Schiesser; René Thieme; Aaron Wu; Peter C Wu; Navtej Buttar; Andrew C Chang Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2018-07-08 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Donald E Low; Madhan Kumar Kuppusamy; Derek Alderson; Ivan Cecconello; Andrew C Chang; Gail Darling; Andrew Davies; Xavier Benoit D'Journo; Suzanne S Gisbertz; S Michael Griffin; Richard Hardwick; Arnulf Hoelscher; Wayne Hofstetter; Blair Jobe; Yuko Kitagawa; Simon Law; Christophe Mariette; Nick Maynard; Christopher R Morse; Philippe Nafteux; Manuel Pera; C S Pramesh; Sonia Puig; John V Reynolds; Wolfgang Schroeder; Mark Smithers; B P L Wijnhoven Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nabil P Rizk; Peter B Bach; Deborah Schrag; Manjit S Bains; Alan D Turnbull; Martin Karpeh; Murray F Brennan; Valerie W Rusch Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Philippa Seika; Matthias Biebl; Jonas Raakow; Nadja Berndt; Linda Feldbrügge; Max Magnus Maurer; Eva Dobrindt; Peter Thuss-Patience; Johann Pratschke; Christian Denecke Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 4.964