| Literature DB >> 34992812 |
Madison J Malfitano1, Jenny T Bui2, Rachel M Swier1, Benjamin E Haithcock3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomies and repair of esophageal perforations are operations used for a variety of clinical indications. Anastomotic leaks are a major post-operative complication after these procedures. At our institution, we routinely use grape juice to detect esophageal leaks in the post-operative setting in addition to other standard imaging modalities. We hypothesize that grape juice can provide similar diagnostic sensitivity and specificity to other modalities for leak detection.Entities:
Keywords: Esophagectomy; barium swallow; esophageal leak; grape juice
Year: 2021 PMID: 34992812 PMCID: PMC8662515 DOI: 10.21037/jtd-21-1185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Thorac Dis ISSN: 2072-1439 Impact factor: 2.895
Patient characteristics
| Characteristic | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Total, n | 64 |
| Age, years, median (IQR) | 61.5 (16.0) |
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Male | 48 (75.0) |
| Female | 16 (25.0) |
| Race/ethnicity, n (%) | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 56 (87.5) |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 6 (9.4) |
| Other | 2 (3.1) |
| Comorbid conditions, n (%) | |
| Hypertension | 37 (57.8) |
| Diabetes | 11 (17.2) |
| Stroke | 7 (10.9) |
| Peripheral vascular disease | 2 (3.1) |
| Smoking history, n (%) | 48 (75) |
| History of alcohol abuse, n (%) | 10 (15.6) |
| Reasons for esophageal procedure, n (%) | |
| Malignant neoplasm | 37 (57.8) |
| Esophageal perforation | 14 (21.9) |
| Achalasia | 3 (4.7) |
| Stricture | 3 (4.7) |
| Other | 7 (10.9) |
| Esophageal procedure performed, n (%) | |
| Total esophagectomy | 6 (9.4) |
| Partial esophagectomy | 44 (68.8) |
| Stent | 1 (1.6) |
| Primary repair with muscle flap | 8 (12.5) |
| Primary repair without muscle flap | 4 (6.3) |
| Drain placement | 1 (1.6) |
| Part of esophagus involved, n (%) | |
| Upper | 1 (1.6) |
| Middle | 5 (7.8) |
| Lower | 56 (87.5) |
| Imaging performed, n (%) | |
| Grape juice and other imaging modality | 1 (1.6) |
| Grape juice and Barium swallow | 63 (98.4) |
Figure 1Inclusion and exclusion criteria for data collection. This represents the 64 patients who were included, broken down by imaging modalities, and then further by number of patients with leaks. Patients with leaks were further excluded for sensitivity and specificity analysis.
Sensitivity and specificity of grape juice test
| Variable | Leak | No leak | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive grape juice test | TP 4 | FP 1 | 5 |
| Negative grape juice test | FN 1 | TN 58 | 59 |
| Total | 5 | 59 | 64 |
| Sensitivity | 80% | ||
| Specificity | 98.3% | ||
Outcomes among patients with and without esophageal leaks
| Outcome | Leak status | P value* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| Pleural effusion | 5 (63%) | 25 (45%) | 0.46 |
| Arrhythmia | 5 (63%) | 17 (30%) | 0.11 |
| Respiratory failure | 4 (50%) | 13 (23%) | 0.20 |
| Readmission | 2 (25%) | 12 (21%) | >0.99 |
| Length of stay (median days) | 19 | 11 | 0.004 |
| Ventilation time (median hours) | 24 (8 total leaks) | 0 (56 total non-leaks) | 0.001 |
*, P<0.05 is considered statistically significant.
Figure 2Algorithm for detection and management of esophageal anastomotic leak. This represents the current clinical utility of the grape juice swallow study at our institution and the clinical decision making pathway depending on test results and patient presentation. EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy.