Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study: A multi-center examination of contemporary treatment

J. T. Ali, R. D. Rice, Elizabeth David, J. D. Spicer, J. J. Dubose, L. Bonavina, S. Siboni, T. A. O'Callaghan, X. Luo-Owen, S. Harrison, C. G. Ball, J. Bini, G. A. Vercruysse, D. Skarupa, C. C. Miller, A. L. Estrera, K. G. Khalil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The treatment of esophageal perforation (EP) remains a significant clinical challenge. While a number of investigators have previously documented efficient approaches, these were mostly single-center experiences reported prior to the introduction of newer technologies: specifically endoluminal stents. This study was designed to document contemporary practice in the diagnosis and management of EP at multiple institutions around the world and includes early clinical outcomes. A five-year (2009-2013) multicenter retrospective review of management and outcomes for patients with thoracic or abdominal esophageal perforation was conducted. Demographics, etiology, diagnostic modalities, treatments, subsequent early outcomes as well as morbidity and mortality were captured and analyzed. During the study period, 199 patients from 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe were identified. Mechanisms of perforation included Boerhaave syndrome (60, 30.1%), iatrogenic injury (65, 32.6%), and penetrating trauma (25, 12.6%). Perforation was isolated to the thoracic segment alone in 124 (62.3%), with 62 (31.2%) involving the thoracoabdominal esophagus. Mean perforation length was 2.5 cm. Observation was selected as initial management in 65 (32.7%), with only two failures. Direct operative intervention was initial management in 65 patients (32.6%), while 29 (14.6%) underwent esophageal stent coverage. Compared to operative intervention, esophageal stent patients were significantly more likely to be older (61.3 vs. 48.3 years old, P < 0.001) and have sustained iatrogenic mechanisms of esophageal perforation (48.3% vs.15.4%). Secondary intervention requirement for patients with perforation was 33.7% overall (66). Complications included sepsis (56, 28.1%), pneumonia (34, 17.1%) and multi-organ failure (23, 11.6%). Overall mortality was 15.1% (30). In contemporary practice, diagnostic and management approaches to esophageal perforation vary widely. Despite the introduction of endoluminal strategies, it continues to carry a high risk of mortality, morbidity, and need for secondary intervention. A concerted multi-institutional, prospectively collected database is ideal for further investigation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-8
Number of pages8
JournalDiseases of the Esophagus
Volume30
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

Esophageal Perforation
Stents
Mortality
Thorax
Morbidity
Therapeutics
Wounds and Injuries
Esophagus
Canada
Sepsis
Pneumonia
Research Personnel
Observation
Demography
Databases
Technology

Keywords

  • Drainage
  • Endoscopy
  • Esophageal perforation
  • Esophagostomy
  • Stents
  • Wounds and injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study : A multi-center examination of contemporary treatment. / Ali, J. T.; Rice, R. D.; David, Elizabeth; Spicer, J. D.; Dubose, J. J.; Bonavina, L.; Siboni, S.; O'Callaghan, T. A.; Luo-Owen, X.; Harrison, S.; Ball, C. G.; Bini, J.; Vercruysse, G. A.; Skarupa, D.; Miller, C. C.; Estrera, A. L.; Khalil, K. G.

In: Diseases of the Esophagus, Vol. 30, No. 11, 01.11.2017, p. 1-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ali, JT, Rice, RD, David, E, Spicer, JD, Dubose, JJ, Bonavina, L, Siboni, S, O'Callaghan, TA, Luo-Owen, X, Harrison, S, Ball, CG, Bini, J, Vercruysse, GA, Skarupa, D, Miller, CC, Estrera, AL & Khalil, KG 2017, 'Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study: A multi-center examination of contemporary treatment', Diseases of the Esophagus, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/dox093
Ali, J. T. ; Rice, R. D. ; David, Elizabeth ; Spicer, J. D. ; Dubose, J. J. ; Bonavina, L. ; Siboni, S. ; O'Callaghan, T. A. ; Luo-Owen, X. ; Harrison, S. ; Ball, C. G. ; Bini, J. ; Vercruysse, G. A. ; Skarupa, D. ; Miller, C. C. ; Estrera, A. L. ; Khalil, K. G. / Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study : A multi-center examination of contemporary treatment. In: Diseases of the Esophagus. 2017 ; Vol. 30, No. 11. pp. 1-8.
@article{7d9d68a7f8c84efcbb89cb34e120d20f,
title = "Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study: A multi-center examination of contemporary treatment",
abstract = "The treatment of esophageal perforation (EP) remains a significant clinical challenge. While a number of investigators have previously documented efficient approaches, these were mostly single-center experiences reported prior to the introduction of newer technologies: specifically endoluminal stents. This study was designed to document contemporary practice in the diagnosis and management of EP at multiple institutions around the world and includes early clinical outcomes. A five-year (2009-2013) multicenter retrospective review of management and outcomes for patients with thoracic or abdominal esophageal perforation was conducted. Demographics, etiology, diagnostic modalities, treatments, subsequent early outcomes as well as morbidity and mortality were captured and analyzed. During the study period, 199 patients from 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe were identified. Mechanisms of perforation included Boerhaave syndrome (60, 30.1{\%}), iatrogenic injury (65, 32.6{\%}), and penetrating trauma (25, 12.6{\%}). Perforation was isolated to the thoracic segment alone in 124 (62.3{\%}), with 62 (31.2{\%}) involving the thoracoabdominal esophagus. Mean perforation length was 2.5 cm. Observation was selected as initial management in 65 (32.7{\%}), with only two failures. Direct operative intervention was initial management in 65 patients (32.6{\%}), while 29 (14.6{\%}) underwent esophageal stent coverage. Compared to operative intervention, esophageal stent patients were significantly more likely to be older (61.3 vs. 48.3 years old, P < 0.001) and have sustained iatrogenic mechanisms of esophageal perforation (48.3{\%} vs.15.4{\%}). Secondary intervention requirement for patients with perforation was 33.7{\%} overall (66). Complications included sepsis (56, 28.1{\%}), pneumonia (34, 17.1{\%}) and multi-organ failure (23, 11.6{\%}). Overall mortality was 15.1{\%} (30). In contemporary practice, diagnostic and management approaches to esophageal perforation vary widely. Despite the introduction of endoluminal strategies, it continues to carry a high risk of mortality, morbidity, and need for secondary intervention. A concerted multi-institutional, prospectively collected database is ideal for further investigation.",
keywords = "Drainage, Endoscopy, Esophageal perforation, Esophagostomy, Stents, Wounds and injuries",
author = "Ali, {J. T.} and Rice, {R. D.} and Elizabeth David and Spicer, {J. D.} and Dubose, {J. J.} and L. Bonavina and S. Siboni and O'Callaghan, {T. A.} and X. Luo-Owen and S. Harrison and Ball, {C. G.} and J. Bini and Vercruysse, {G. A.} and D. Skarupa and Miller, {C. C.} and Estrera, {A. L.} and Khalil, {K. G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/dote/dox093",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "Diseases of the Esophagus",
issn = "1120-8694",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study

T2 - A multi-center examination of contemporary treatment

AU - Ali, J. T.

AU - Rice, R. D.

AU - David, Elizabeth

AU - Spicer, J. D.

AU - Dubose, J. J.

AU - Bonavina, L.

AU - Siboni, S.

AU - O'Callaghan, T. A.

AU - Luo-Owen, X.

AU - Harrison, S.

AU - Ball, C. G.

AU - Bini, J.

AU - Vercruysse, G. A.

AU - Skarupa, D.

AU - Miller, C. C.

AU - Estrera, A. L.

AU - Khalil, K. G.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - The treatment of esophageal perforation (EP) remains a significant clinical challenge. While a number of investigators have previously documented efficient approaches, these were mostly single-center experiences reported prior to the introduction of newer technologies: specifically endoluminal stents. This study was designed to document contemporary practice in the diagnosis and management of EP at multiple institutions around the world and includes early clinical outcomes. A five-year (2009-2013) multicenter retrospective review of management and outcomes for patients with thoracic or abdominal esophageal perforation was conducted. Demographics, etiology, diagnostic modalities, treatments, subsequent early outcomes as well as morbidity and mortality were captured and analyzed. During the study period, 199 patients from 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe were identified. Mechanisms of perforation included Boerhaave syndrome (60, 30.1%), iatrogenic injury (65, 32.6%), and penetrating trauma (25, 12.6%). Perforation was isolated to the thoracic segment alone in 124 (62.3%), with 62 (31.2%) involving the thoracoabdominal esophagus. Mean perforation length was 2.5 cm. Observation was selected as initial management in 65 (32.7%), with only two failures. Direct operative intervention was initial management in 65 patients (32.6%), while 29 (14.6%) underwent esophageal stent coverage. Compared to operative intervention, esophageal stent patients were significantly more likely to be older (61.3 vs. 48.3 years old, P < 0.001) and have sustained iatrogenic mechanisms of esophageal perforation (48.3% vs.15.4%). Secondary intervention requirement for patients with perforation was 33.7% overall (66). Complications included sepsis (56, 28.1%), pneumonia (34, 17.1%) and multi-organ failure (23, 11.6%). Overall mortality was 15.1% (30). In contemporary practice, diagnostic and management approaches to esophageal perforation vary widely. Despite the introduction of endoluminal strategies, it continues to carry a high risk of mortality, morbidity, and need for secondary intervention. A concerted multi-institutional, prospectively collected database is ideal for further investigation.

AB - The treatment of esophageal perforation (EP) remains a significant clinical challenge. While a number of investigators have previously documented efficient approaches, these were mostly single-center experiences reported prior to the introduction of newer technologies: specifically endoluminal stents. This study was designed to document contemporary practice in the diagnosis and management of EP at multiple institutions around the world and includes early clinical outcomes. A five-year (2009-2013) multicenter retrospective review of management and outcomes for patients with thoracic or abdominal esophageal perforation was conducted. Demographics, etiology, diagnostic modalities, treatments, subsequent early outcomes as well as morbidity and mortality were captured and analyzed. During the study period, 199 patients from 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe were identified. Mechanisms of perforation included Boerhaave syndrome (60, 30.1%), iatrogenic injury (65, 32.6%), and penetrating trauma (25, 12.6%). Perforation was isolated to the thoracic segment alone in 124 (62.3%), with 62 (31.2%) involving the thoracoabdominal esophagus. Mean perforation length was 2.5 cm. Observation was selected as initial management in 65 (32.7%), with only two failures. Direct operative intervention was initial management in 65 patients (32.6%), while 29 (14.6%) underwent esophageal stent coverage. Compared to operative intervention, esophageal stent patients were significantly more likely to be older (61.3 vs. 48.3 years old, P < 0.001) and have sustained iatrogenic mechanisms of esophageal perforation (48.3% vs.15.4%). Secondary intervention requirement for patients with perforation was 33.7% overall (66). Complications included sepsis (56, 28.1%), pneumonia (34, 17.1%) and multi-organ failure (23, 11.6%). Overall mortality was 15.1% (30). In contemporary practice, diagnostic and management approaches to esophageal perforation vary widely. Despite the introduction of endoluminal strategies, it continues to carry a high risk of mortality, morbidity, and need for secondary intervention. A concerted multi-institutional, prospectively collected database is ideal for further investigation.

KW - Drainage

KW - Endoscopy

KW - Esophageal perforation

KW - Esophagostomy

KW - Stents

KW - Wounds and injuries

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042156953&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042156953&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/dote/dox093

DO - 10.1093/dote/dox093

M3 - Article

C2 - 28881905

AN - SCOPUS:85042156953

VL - 30

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Diseases of the Esophagus

JF - Diseases of the Esophagus

SN - 1120-8694

IS - 11

ER -