Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for esophageal cancer invading the thoracic aorta: a questionnaire survey study

Clinical Characteristics and Early Surgical Outcomes of Aortoesophageal Fistula

BACKGROUND

The incidence and prognosis of aortoesophageal fistula (AEF) has not been clarified. The clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of AEF were investigated.

METHODS

The clinical data of patients who underwent surgical treatment of AEF from January 2020 to December 2021 that were registered in the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database (JCVSD) were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the period, 123 patients (aged 71.0 years [interquartile range, 61.0-78.0 years]; 76.4% men) underwent surgical treatment of AEF. The prevalence of secondary AEF was 61%. Secondary AEF after aortic grafting was the most frequent (n = 40 [32.5%]), followed by AEF after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR; n = 30 [24.4%]). Operative mortality occurred in 23 patients (18.7%). TEVAR for AEF (P = .019). Univariable logistic regression analyses showed postoperative bleeding (P = .047), stroke (P = .004), renal failure (P < .001), newly required hemodialysis (P = .023), pneumonia (P = .003), multisystem failure (P < .001), and dyslipidemia (P = .02) were associated with risk factors of operative mortality after surgical treatment of AEF.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study on the surgical treatment of AEF demonstrated a higher incidence of secondary AEF than primary AEF. Open surgical repair and TEVAR for AEF were both associated with high operative mortality. TEVAR and dyslipidemia were risk factors for operative mortality. Precautions and further improved treatment strategies for AEF are still required.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair For The Management of Aorto-Esophageal Fistulae: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Aorto-esophageal fistula (AEF) is a rare condition consisting in a fistula between the aorta and the esophagus. The thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become an accepted treatment for initial AEF management, but large series are not available and outcomes are questionable. This study aims at evaluating the current evidence of TEVAR in AEF.

METHODS

A search on PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted up to June 2023. Data on article type, patients' demographics, cause and type of AEF, clinical presentation, time from clinical presentation to TEVAR, strategies, mortality, and follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

106 reports published between 1997 and 2023 were deemed eligible for this study (92 case reports; 14 case-series). A total of 163 patients (mean age: 58.9±16.5 years), diagnosed with AEF and treated with TEVAR (with or without staged surgical repair of the esophagus or the aorta) were included. A thoracic aortic aneurysm (34.4%) was the most common cause of AEF, followed by esophageal cancer (25.2%), foreign body in esophagus (13.5%) and post-TEVAR complication (9.8%). Primary AEF were 129 (79.1%), and secondary AEF were 34 (20.9%). TEVAR alone was performed 80 times (49.1%), while TEVAR with staged esophageal or aortic surgery 83 times (50.9%). The overall 30-day mortality was 11.7% (n=19): 18.8% in TEVAR alone and 4.8% in TEVAR with staged surgery, respectively (p=0.006). Mean follow-up time was 12.3±14.7 months. The overall 6-month mortality was 34.4% (n=56): 48.8% in TEVAR alone and 20.5% in TEVAR with staged surgery (p<0.001). Bleeding for recurrence of AEF and sepsis were the main causes of death.

CONCLUSIONS

In case of AEF, TEVAR can be urgently performed for bleeding management and hemodynamic control. TEVAR alone is a valuable yet not definitive procedure. Instead, TEVAR followed by surgical repair may provide better outcomes and should be recommended, when possible.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This review summarizes the published papers on endovascular aortic repair for the treatment of aorto-esophageal fistulae. The clinicians can find several important details on how to manage the presence of an esophageal fistulae wich represents a potential life-threatening problem for the patients. The implantation of a thoracic endovascular aortic prosthesis represents a fast and reliable procedure in case of emergency but a second step surgical repair provides better outcomes and should be recommended in suitable patients.

Efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aorto-esophageal fistula due to esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aorto-esophageal fistula (AEF) due to esophageal cancer (EC) is a life-threatening condition characterized by sudden hemorrhage, which often causes sudden death. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for AEF due to EC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) databases, the Cochrane Library databases, Ichushi-Web (the databases of the Japan Medical Abstract Society), and CiNii (Academic information search service of the National Institute of Information from Japan) from January 2000 to November 2023 for articles about TEVAR for an emergent aortic hemorrhage (salvage TEVAR [S-TEVAR]), and the prophylactic procedure (P-TEVAR). Six studies (140 cases) were eligible for meta-analysis. The 90-day mortality of S-TEVAR and P-TEVAR was 40% (95% CI 23-60, I2 = 36%) and 8% (95% CI 3-17, I2 = 0%), respectively. Post-S-TEVAR hemorrhagic and infectious complications were 17% (95% CI 3-57, I2 = 71%) and 20% (95% CI 5-57, I2 = 66%), respectively. Post-P-TEVAR hemorrhagic and infectious complications were 2% (95% CI 0-10, I2 = 0%) and 3% (95% CI 1-12, I2 = 0%), respectively. TEVAR for AEF due to EC may be a useful therapeutic option to manage or prevent hemorrhagic oncological emergencies.

Single-Center Retrospective Subgroup Analysis of "Primary Aortic" (Aneurysm, Aortic Dissection, PAU) and "Secondary Aortic" (Iatrogenic, Trauma, Aortoesophageal Fistula) Indications for Emergency TEVAR

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in the treatment of "primary aortic" (aneurysm, aortic dissection, penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU)) and "secondary aortic" (iatrogenic, trauma, and aortoesophageal fistula) pathologies.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a cohort of patients treated at a single tertiary referral center from 2015 to 2021. The primary end point was postoperative in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points were the duration of the procedure, duration of postoperative intensive care treatment, length of hospital stay, and the nature and severity of postoperative complications according to the Dindo-Clavien classification.

RESULTS

A total of 34 patients underwent TEVAR for emergency indications. Twenty-two patients were treated for primary and twelve patients for secondary aortic pathologies. Concerning in-hospital mortality, no statistically significant difference could be observed between the primary and secondary aortic groups (27.3% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.711). Patients with an aortoesophageal fistula had a mortality rate of 66.7%. Postoperative morbidity (Dindo-Clavien > 3) was also not statistically significantly different between the primary and secondary aortic groups (36.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.86). Preoperative hemoglobin level (p < 0.001 for mortality, p = 0.002 for morbidity), hemoglobin level difference (p = 0.022, p = 0.032), postoperative creatinine level (p = 0.009, p = 0.035), and pre- and postoperative lactate levels (p < 0.001 for both mortality and morbidity) were found to be independent factors associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity (Dindo-Clavien > 3), respectively. The preoperative creatinine level was found to be associated with mortality (p = 0.024) but not morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbidity and in-hospital mortality are still considerable after emergency TEVAR for both primary and secondary aortic indications. Pre- and postoperative levels of hemoglobin, creatinine, and lactate may be valuable to predict patient outcomes.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors for 30-day mortality in esophageal cancer patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter study

Background

Esophageal cancer is a highly malignant neoplasm with poor prognosis. Of its patients, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the most challenging and threatening conditions in the emergency department (ED). However, no previous studies have analyzed the etiologies and clinical outcomes in this specific population. This study aimed to identify the clinical characteristics and risk factors for 30-day mortality in esophageal cancer patients with UGIB.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 249 adult patients with esophageal cancer presenting with UGIB in the ED. Patients was divided into the survivor and non-survivor groups, and their demographic information, medical history, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, and clinical findings were recorded. The factors associated with 30-day mortality were identified using Cox's proportional hazard model.

Results

Among the 249 patients in this study, 30-day mortality occurred in 47 patients (18.9%). The most common causes of UGIB were tumor ulcer (53.8%), followed by gastric/duodenal ulcer (14.5%), and arterial-esophageal fistula (AEF) (12.0%). Multivariate analyses indicated that underweight (HR = 2.02, p = 0.044), history of chronic kidney disease (HR = 6.39, p < 0.001), active bleeding (HR = 2.24, p = 0.039), AEF (HR = 2.23, p = 0.046), and metastatic lymph nodes (HR = 2.99, p = 0.021) were independent risk factors for 30-day mortality.

Conclusions

The most common cause of UGIB in esophageal cancer patients was tumor ulcer. AEF, accounting for 12% of UGIB in our study, is not an uncommon cause. Underweight, underlying chronic kidney disease, active bleeding, AEF, and tumor N stage > 0 were independent risk factors for 30-day mortality.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Salvage and Elective Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients with Advanced Esophageal Cancer with Aortic Invasion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aortoesophageal fistula (AEF) caused by esophageal cancer (EC) is a rare but life-threatening complication. However, the optimal management strategy remains undetermined. Previous cases have demonstrated that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is effective for prophylactic management. In our study, we evaluated the management of AEF with elective TEVAR over salvage TEVAR. In our single-center retrospective cohort study, forty-seven patients with cT4M0 EC were included in this study, and we divided them into salvage (Group S) and elective (Group E) groups based on whether TEVAR was performed before the hemorrhagic AEF occurred. Our study outcomes included survival and complication rate after TEVAR. Group E showed better overall 90-day survival and aortic-event-free survival in 90-day and 180-day over Group S. More patients in Group E could receive subsequent chemoradiotherapy or esophagectomy. Significantly fewer AEF-related complications, including recurrent hemorrhagic events after TEVAR, hypoperfusion-related organ injury, and bloodstream infection, were noted in Group E. In patients with advanced EC-invading aorta, elective TEVAR offered an early overall and aortic-event-free survival benefit compared to salvage TEVAR. By reducing the AEF-related complications, elective TEVAR could provide more patients receiving subsequent curative-intent treatment.

The Long-Term Clinical Impact of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for Advanced Esophageal Cancer Invading Aorta

Background

Advanced esophageal cancer invading the aorta is considered unsuitable for surgery with definitive chemotherapy or chemoradiation as the treatments of choice. In the current study, we evaluated the long-term clinical impact of combining thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with multimodality treatment in caring for such patients.

Methods

We evaluated 48 patients who had advanced esophageal cancer with aortic invasion. The oncological outcome, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), after multimodality treatment with or without TEVAR is evaluated for these patients.

Results

Overall, 25/48 patients (52.1%) received a TEVAR procedure. There was no significant difference in OS (p = 0.223) between patients who did or did not receive TEVAR; however, patients who received TEVAR had significantly less local tumor recurrence (p = 0.020) and longer PFS (p = 0.019). This impact was most evident in patients who received both TEVAR and esophagectomy, with an incremental increase in hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression of 2.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–9.96) and 4.37 (95% CI 1.33–14.33) observed under multivariable analysis, respectively, in comparison with patients who underwent only one or neither of these procedures (p = 0.005 for trend test).

Conclusion

TEVAR is a feasible procedure for esophageal cancers invading the aorta and can be used for curative-intent resection to improve local tumor control and PFS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10081-3.