Airway complications after covered stent placement for malignant esophageal stricture: special reference to radiation therapy

Efficacy of palliative stenting in patients with esophageal obstruction attributable to malignancy

BACKGROUND

Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is useful for patients with poor oral intake caused by esophageal stricture attributable to malignancy. In this study, we examined the usefulness of esophageal SEMS placement as a palliative treatment and evaluated the prognostic factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent esophageal SEMS placement at three regional base hospitals from December 2007 to June 2023 were included in the study.

RESULTS

Of 73 patients, 57 patients who underwent palliative SEMS placement were evaluated after excluding 16 patients in whom postoperative treatment was possible after SEMS placement. Median survival after SEMS placement was 67 days (mean, 96 ± 16 days). Univariate analysis identified age (≤78 years vs. >78 years), performance status (3 or 4 vs. 1 or 2), the cancer location (other sites vs. gastrointestinal cancer), the resumption of oral intake (failure vs. success), and clinical stage (IVA/IVB vs. III) as prognostic factors after SEMS placement. On multivariate analysis, performance status 3 or 4 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28-6.45), cancers other than gastrointestinal cancer (OR = 3.75, 95% CI = 1.14-12.3), and failure to resume oral intake (OR = 21.3, 95% CI = 3.40-133.0) were significantly associated with poor prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative treatment with SEMS placement was safe, and a high percentage of patients resumed food intake. An inability to resume food intake, poor performance status, and cancer outside the gastrointestinal tract were poor prognostic factors.

X-ray-guided self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) implantation in oesophageal malignancy as an alternative treatment

<b><br>Indroduction:</b> Significant dysphagia, aspiration pneumonia, and impossible oral nutrition in patients with unresectable or recurrent gastroesophageal malignancy or bronchial cancer invading the oesophagus with a tracheoesophageal fistula lead to cachexia. Dehiscence of the esophago-jejunal or gastroesophageal anastomosis may cause severe oesophageal haemorrhage. We believe that X-ray-guided oesophageal stent implantation (SEMS) is an alternative palliative method for microjejunostomy or full parenteral nutrition.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim of this paper was to assess the safety and efficacy of a novel X-ray-guided oesophageal stent implantation technique.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> This retrospective analysis included 54 patients (35 men and 19 women) treated for malignant dysphagia, gastroesophageal/gastrointestinal anastomotic fistula or bronchoesophageal fistula in two Surgical Units between 2010 and 2019, using a modified intravascular approach to oesophageal stent implantation.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> The presented modified intravascular method of oesophageal stent implantation was successfully performed in all described patients requiring oral nutrition restoration immediately following oesophageal stent implantation. Two patients with oesophageal anastomotic dehiscence died on postoperative days 7 and 9 due to circulatory and respiratory failure. One patient was reimplanted due to a recurrent fistula. Two patients with ruptured thoracic aneurysm and thoracic stent graft implantation due to oesophageal haemorrhage, who were implanted with an oesophageal stent, died on postoperative days 4 and 14.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> The modified intravascular X-ray-guided SEMS technique may be a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable oesophageal malignancies.</br>.

Lima GR, Cordero MAC, Pombo AAM, Sallum RAA, Ribeiro Jr U, Baron TH, Maluf-Filho F. Self-expandable metallic stent-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas in patients with advanced esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely adopted for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with malignant esophageal strictures. An important adverse event is the development of SEMS-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas (SEMS-ERFs). This study aimed to assess the risk factors related to the development of SEMS-ERF after SEMS placement in patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed at the Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo. All patients with malignant esophageal strictures who underwent esophageal SEMS placement between 2009 and 2019 were included in the study.

RESULTS

Of the 335 patients, 37 (11.0%) developed SEMS-ERF, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Stent flare of 28 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.51; p=0.02) and post-stent chemotherapy (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.01-4.00; p=0.05) were associated with an increased risk of developing SEMS-ERF, while lower-third tumors were a protective factor (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26-0.85; p=0.01). No difference was observed in overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of SEMS-ERFs was 11%, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Post-stent chemotherapy and a 28 mm stent flare were associated with a higher risk of SEMS-ERF.

Delayed bronchial obstruction following esophageal stent placement: A case report and review of the literature

Esophageal adenocarcinoma typically has a poor prognosis at the time of diagnosis. Consequently, palliation of symptoms is vital to disease management with a cornerstone for palliation being esophageal stent placement. Esophageal stents are associated with a variety of complications that may present immediately or long after stent placement is completed. In this report, we present a 58-year-old male who developed shortness of breath 4 months after metallic esophageal stent placement. After further evaluation with a chest radiograph and CT angiogram of the chest, the patient was found to have obstruction of the left mainstem bronchus secondary to mass effect from the esophageal stent. Airway compromise secondary to metallic esophageal stent placement typically occurs immediately after placement of the stent. There are only a few documented cases of this complication occurring at a delayed interval. This case clearly demonstrates this rare complication of esophageal stent placement in the setting of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Endoscopic Stenting for Malignant Dysphagia in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Malignant dysphagia is a common problem in patients with esophageal cancer. Endoscopic stenting can resolve dysphagia caused by malignant stricture; however, controversy exists regarding the use of esophageal stenting for the treatment of malignant stricture, including whether stenting or radiotherapy is superior, whether stenting before or after radiotherapy is safe, whether stenting before or after chemotherapy is safe, and whether low-radial-force stents are safer than conventional stents. Among treatment options for malignant dysphagia, stenting may have some disadvantages in terms of pain relief and the risk of adverse events compared with radiotherapy and in terms of survival compared with gastrostomy. Additionally, the risk of stent-related adverse events is significantly associated with prior radiotherapy. The risk of perforation is especially high when a radiation dose of >40 Gy is delivered to the esophagus after stenting, whereas perforation is not associated with prior chemotherapy or additional chemotherapy after stenting. Nevertheless, stenting remains an important palliative option, especially for patients with a short life expectancy and a strong desire for oral intake, because stenting can facilitate a more rapid improvement in dysphagia than radiotherapy or gastrostomy. The application of a low-radial-force stent should be considered to reduce the risk of adverse events, especially in patients with prior radiotherapy.

The role of polyglycolic acid sheets in the management of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection gastrointestinal bleeding and esophageal stricture: A PRISMA compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As a relatively minimally invasive technique, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used for the treatment of gastrointestinal lesions. However, it is associated with complications, such as postoperative bleeding, stricture, and perforation. A covering method using polyglycolic acid (PGA) sheets for ESD-induced ulcers has been reported to be effective in reducing the risk of post-ESD bleeding and esophageal stricture. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of PGA sheets in the prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding and esophageal stricture after ESD.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases on October 15, 2019. All eligible articles were selected based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main outcomes were the rates of post-ESD gastrointestinal bleeding and esophageal stricture. Cochrane's Q statistic and I2 test were used to identify heterogeneity between the studies. When there was no obvious heterogeneity (I2 < 50%, P > .1), a fixed-effect model was used. When there was obvious heterogeneity (I2 > 50%, P < .1), a random effect model was used. Funnel plots and the Egger regression test were used to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were included in the meta-analysis, of which 7 were exclusively about the use of PGA sheets to prevent postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding, and the remaining reported the use of PGA sheets to prevent postoperative esophageal stenosis. Our analysis showed that preventive therapy with PGA sheets decreased the rates of post-ESD gastrointestinal bleeding (risk ratio [RR] = 0.35, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.19-0.64, P < .001) and esophageal stricture (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27-0.79, P = .005), and the gastrointestinal bleeding and esophageal stricture rates after preventive treatment with PGA sheets were 5.7% (95% CI: 3.6%-8.8%) and 20.6% (95% CI: 14.5%-28.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of PGA sheets after ESD has an excellent outcome in reducing the risk of postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding and esophageal stricture.

Delayed Bronchial Obstruction Following Esophageal Stent Implantation: A Case Report

Airway compression is a rare complication of esophageal stent placement. With the introduction of self-expanding metal stents, the incidence of bronchial obstruction by esophageal stents has decreased. Delayed external airway compression after esophageal stent implantation is rarely reported. We describe a case of left main bronchial obstruction after self-expandable esophageal stent placement. A 70-year-old patient with advanced esophageal cancer visited the emergency room (ER) with worsening cough and dyspnea. He had received palliative concurrent chemoradiotherapy after esophageal self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion three months ago. One month before the ER visit, additional esophageal SEMS placement (stent-in-stent) was performed owing to the development of a tracheoesophageal fistula. After hospitalization, chest radiography revealed a patchy consolidation in the left lower lobe. A diagnosis of pneumonia was made, and the patient was treated with antibiotics. Seven days after antibiotic treatment, the patient developed a fever and severe dyspnea. Auscultation revealed the absence of breath sounds in the left hemithorax. A follow-up chest radiograph showed a white-out of the left hemithorax. Flexible bronchoscopy revealed luminal narrowing of the left main bronchus (LMB) due to external compression. Chest computed tomography further demonstrated compression of the LMB by esophageal stents. This case highlights that esophageal SEMS can present as an emergent and often life-threatening airway obstruction.

Dual Airway and Esophageal Stenting in Advanced Esophageal Cancer With Lesions Near Carina

BACKGROUND

Tracheobronchial stenting either alone or with esophageal stenting is often required for symptom palliation in obstructive or fistulous lesions of the airway due to esophageal cancer. There is limited evidence regarding dual stenting for lesions near the carina due to esophageal cancer. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the technical feasibility, outcomes, and complications of preplanned dual stenting in these patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study carried out over a period of 4 years (January 2015 to July 2019). All patients undergoing dual stenting in the airway and esophagus with obstructive or fistulous lesions near the carina were included. The esophageal stent was placed within 24 hours. Prestenting and poststenting symptoms were compared using a symptom-based visual analog scale, Hugh Jones dyspnea scale and dysphagia scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (20 males; mean±SD age, 55.3±12.2 y) underwent dual stenting. Twenty-four patients had central airway obstruction due to: infiltration in 20 (69%) and external compression in 4 (13.7%), respectively. Five (17.3%) patients had tracheoesophageal fistula with no airway obstruction. In 80% of the patients (n=23), silicone stents were placed. There was significant improvement in both dyspnea and dysphagia after dual stenting (P<0.001). Mucus plugging, lower respiratory infection, and granulation tissue were the main complications. Median survival after dual stent was 97 days (range, 17 to 297 d).

CONCLUSION

Dual stenting within the airway and the esophagus is a safe and viable option for palliative relief of symptoms in patients with advanced esophageal cancer.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

MALIGNANT DISEASE

1: ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

BENIGN DISEASE

5: ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Airway Involvement in Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Airway involvement, such as airway invasion, compression, and tracheobronchoesophageal fistula (TEF), in esophageal cancer is associated with significant morbidity. However, the risk factors and outcomes of airway complications remain unclear, with limited evidence to guide management.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 804 patients with a diagnosis of esophageal cancer from 1998 to 2018 at a tertiary care medical center (Singapore General Hospital, Singapore). Patients' demographics, treatment details, and airway involvement, as determined by bronchoscopic evaluation or computed tomographic imaging, were recorded and analyzed to determine risk factors and outcomes of airway involvement.

RESULTS

The incidence of airway involvement and TEF was 36.6% and 13.1%, respectively. Airway involvement was associated with reduced survival from the time of diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 1.79) and increased hospitalizations per year (4.53 ± 4.80 vs 2.75 ± 3.68; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, midesophageal tumors (odds ratio [OR], 11.0; 95% CI, 6.3 to 19.0) and upper esophageal tumors (OR, 8.5; 95% CI, 4.7 to 15.6), previous treatment with esophageal stenting (OR, 17.8; 95% CI, 4.1 to 77.6), and chemotherapy or radiotherapy were associated with development of airway involvement. In patients with TEF, treatment with chemotherapy (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.60) and combined airway and esophageal stenting (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.91) were independently associated with improved survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Airway involvement and TEF are common and are associated with increased morbidity and poorer survival. Clinicians should remain vigilant for airway complications after treatment with esophageal stenting, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy, especially in patients with midesophageal and upper esophageal cancers. In patients with TEFs, survival is improved when they are treated with airway stenting, esophageal stenting, or chemotherapy.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of self-expanding metal stent placement following palliative chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of prior chemotherapy on self-expanding metal stent (SEMS)-related complications in patients with locally advanced primary esophageal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from patients with locally advanced primary esophageal cancer who received SEMS placement with or without prior chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped according to prior palliative therapy: group A (n = 41) had received SEMS only, and group B (n = 64) had received palliative chemotherapy prior to SEMS placement. Patients' age, stricture length, tumor location, and dysphagia score prior to SEMS placement were evaluated. The overall patient cohort had a median follow-up period of 129 days (range 11-463). Outcomes after SEMS placement, including technical and clinical success rates, the occurrence of complications, and overall survival, were compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding patients' age, stricture length, tumor location, and dysphagia score prior to SEMS placement. SEMS placement was technically successful in all patients, with no procedure-related complications reported. Clinical success was achieved in 95.1% of patients in group A and 96.8% of patients in group B. The duration of stent patency was significantly shorter in group B [162 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) 126.6-198.4 vs. group A (339 days; 95% CI 258.8-419.3], p = 0.001. No significant differences were seen between the two groups regarding dysphagia score improvement [group A (3.15 ± 0.57 to 1.17 ± 0.83; p < 0.001) and group B (3.17 ± 0.80 to 1.14 ± 0.79; p < 0.001); p = 0.66], complications [group A (10/41), and group B (24/64); p = 0.094], or overall survival [the median and mean overall survival periods were 105 (95% CI 30-180) and 132 days (95% CI 97-167), respectively, in group A, and 126 (95% CI 88-164) and 156 days (95% CI 132-180), respectively, in group B; p = 0.592].

CONCLUSION

Prior chemotherapy did not increase the risk of complications following SEMS placement in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. SEMS patency was significantly longer in patients who did not receive chemotherapy prior to SEMS placement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

Combined airway and esophageal stents implantation for malignant tracheobronchial and esophageal disease: A STROBE-compliant article

We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combined airway and esophageal stents under fluoroscopy guidance and local anesthesia for patients with malignant tracheobronchial and esophageal disease. This retrospective analysis included 35 consecutive patients underwent combined stenting from March 2012 to August 2016. All patients underwent chest computed tomography scans before stenting and during follow-up. Thirty-nine airway stents and 43 esophageal covered stents were implanted. The indication of stenting, technical success and postinterventional complications were collected and analyzed. Thirty-nine airway stents and 43 esophageal covered stents were implanted. Stenting failed in 1 airway stent, and 2 esophageal stents, with technology success rates of 97.4% and 95.3%, respectively. No procedure-related death occurred, only 1 patient died from failure of respiration due to esophagotracheal fistula. The median interval between 2 stenting was 13.0 days. Both dyspnea and dysphasia were significantly relieved after stenting. Restenosis after stenting (7.7%) was the most common complication for airway stenting, all these cases required second stenting. Stent migration (7.0%) was the most common complication after esophageal stenting, 1 case had to receive airway stenting and 1 case received replacement of esophageal stent. During follow up, 23 patients were clinically cured, 2 patients were improved in symptoms, and 1 was invalid. Eight deaths were found in total. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates were 82.4%, 78.8%, and 78.8%, respectively. In conclusion, combined airway and esophageal stents implantation under fluoroscopy guidance and local anesthesia are safe and effective for malignant tracheobronchial and esophageal disease.

A Novel Tracheobronchial Stent Loaded with 125I Seeds in Patients with Malignant Airway Obstruction Compared to a Conventional Stent: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

Background

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel radioactive bare metal stent (RBMS) compared with a conventional bare metal stent (CBMS) in patients with inoperable malignant airway obstruction.

Methods

This prospective study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. Patients with malignant airway obstruction who had dyspnea were randomly assigned to receive RBMS or CBMS placement. The primary endpoint was stenosis grade, while the secondary endpoints were technical success, overall survival, and complications. A p value of <0·05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Between September 2013 and July 2015, 66 patients with inoperable malignant airway obstruction received stent placement fluoroscopically (33 in either group). The median follow-up time was 154 days (range, 15–335 days). The baseline stenosis was immediately relieved in both groups after stent placement, and the stenosis grades in the RBMS group were significantly lower than that in the CBMS group since the second month (p < 0·05). The technical success rates of stent placement were 100% in both groups. The median survival in the RBMS group was significantly longer than that in the CBMS group (170 days vs. 123 days, p < 0·05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p < 0·05).

Conclusions

The placement of RBMS in patients with inoperable malignant airway obstruction is feasible and safe, and it significantly reduces restenosis and improves overall survival compared with the placement of CBMS.

•

The baseline stenosis was immediately relieved in both groups after stent placement.

•

The stenosis grades in the RBMS group were significantly lower than that in the CBMS group since the second month.

•

The technical success rates of stent placement were 100% in both groups.

•

The median survival in the RBMS group was significantly longer than that in the CBMS group.

•

There was no significant difference of the incidence of complications between the two groups.

Malignant airway obstruction (MAO) is a serious situation of 20-30% cases of lung cancer, resulting in dyspnea, decreased functional status, and asphyxiation risk. Conventional stent placement provides immediate palliation of dyspnea. However, stent restenosis occurs during the follow up. A novel radioactive bare metal stent (RBMS) loaded with ¹²⁵I seed was developed for preventing such restenosis. Our study showed that placement of RBMS in patients with inoperable malignant airway obstruction is feasible and safe, and it significantly reduces the restenosis and improves overall survival compared with placement of conventional stent.

Safety and efficacy of airway stenting in patients with malignant oesophago-airway fistula

Background

Close anatomical relationships between the oesophagus and the bronchial tree can lead to the formation of oesophageal fistula particularly in patients with advanced lung or oesophageal carcinoma. Stenting is a most often used treatment in such patients, but data regarding the relative value of unilateral (US) vs. double stenting (DS) are scarce.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of hospital records of patients with oesophageal fistula who underwent stenting between 2008 and 2016. In those in whom airway stenosis was >30%, double stenting (oesophagus and bronchial tree) was performed, whereas in those with lesser airway stenosis unilateral stenting (i.e., oesophagus only) was performed. In all patients, the degree of dysphagia, the degree of dyspnoea and the quality of life were assessed before and after the stenting.

Results

There were 46 patients, analysed, including 26 who underwent DS and 20 patients who underwent US. Both, DS and US resulted in significant improvement of dysphagia (2.72 vs. 1.2, P=0.0001 and 2.65 vs. 1.0, P=0.0001), dyspnoea (2.89 vs. 0.34, P=0.0001 and 1.71 vs. 0.09, P=0.0001) and performance score (53.2 vs. 66.3, P=0.0001 and 54.3 vs. 62.38, P=0.0001). Neither fistula type, nor stenting method, weight loss and gain, and BMI, had an effect on survival (P=0.34). Disease progression and recurrence of fistula requiring re-intervention occurred in 9 patients (19.5%).

Conclusions

Double and unilateral stenting is an effective measure to alleviate dysphagia and dyspnoea in patients treated with malignant oesophageal fistula. In those with airway stenosis of ≤30%, stenting of the oesophagus only, instead of DS, is a safe method of treatment.

Comparison of Efficacy of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Placement in the Unresectable Esophageal Cancer Patients

This is a retrospective study to evaluate the prevention of complications of metallic stent placement in patients with unresectable advanced esophageal cancer. A total of 87 patients were treated with 4 types of metal stents in the esophagus over a period of 18 years. Stent placement was technically successful. The most common prior treatment was chemoradiotherapy. There were no significant differences in the rate of patients with no complications among the prior treatments. Approximately, 30% of patients had the most common chest pain in complications. Stent placement within one month after the completion of chemoradiotherapy should be avoided for the prevention of the chest pain. There was no significant difference in the rate of patients with no complications by lesion location. The rate of no complications was higher for the Niti-S stent than the Gianturco Z-stent or Ultraflex stent. Of note, no complications were noted for the Niti-S ultrathin stent at all. Among cases of stent-related death, the most common type of complication was respiratory disorder caused by the stent that seems to be thick and hard. Therefore, the stent with thin and flexible characteristics like the Niti-S ultrathin stent will solve the various problems of esophageal stent placement.

Double stenting for malignant oesophago-respiratory fistula

Introduction

The close anatomical relationship between the oesophagus and bronchial tree results in formation of an oesophago-respiratory fistula in a subset of patients with advanced oesophageal or lung cancer. In those patients stenting of both the oesophagus and tracheobronchial tree is a valid option of palliative treatment.

Aim

To determine the effectiveness, tolerance, quality of life, safety and survival after double stenting procedures.

Material and methods

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed, concerning consecutive patients with oesophago-respiratory fistulas treated with double stenting. In all patients the degree of dysphagia, respiratory function before and after the procedure, and quality of life were evaluated. Partially covered oesophageal self-expanding metallic stents (PCESEMS) were used for oesophageal stenting, and silicone Y-type or partially covered self-expanding bronchial and tracheal stents (PCASEMS) were used to restore airway patency.

Results

Between 2003 and 2015, 31 patients underwent double stenting due to oesophago-respiratory fistulas. Twenty-nine patients were diagnosed with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and 2 with bronchial carcinoma. In all patients, improvement in the general condition and quality of life was observed after airway patency restoration. Two patients required mechanical ventilation due to respiratory failure immediately after the procedure. Seven patients with oesophageal fistulas died because of bleeding in the long-term follow-up. Four patients required endoscopic re-intervention. Mean survival time was 67.1 days.

Conclusions

Double stenting is an effective procedure improving patients’ quality of life. However, life-threatening complications can occur.

Palliation of Concomitant Tracheobronchial and Esophageal Disease Using a Combined Airway and Esophageal Approach

BACKGROUND

Neoplastic involvement of the mediastinum can contribute to both airway and esophageal pathology. That can manifest as combined esophageal and airway stenosis, or tracheobronchoesophageal fistula. Conventional palliative treatment of these problems consists of endoluminal stent insertion. The double stenting approach consists of insertion of a tracheobronchial and an esophageal stent in parallel and allows concomitant symptomatic relief of both the airway and esophageal pathology.

METHODS

The study consists of a retrospective case series of patients who underwent a double stenting procedure for concomitant airway and esophageal disease between August 2009 and September 2014. The type of airway stent chosen was determined based on the pathology and the level of the lesion (simple tubular in the mid trachea or mainstem bronchus, Y-stent for carina).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were treated using the double stenting approach during a combined procedure over 5 years: 15 patients with tracheobronchoesophageal fistula and 24 with stenosis. Immediate relief of symptoms, defined as resuming oral intake and breathing without an external tracheal device, was observed in 25 patients (64%). Thirty-two patients (82%) were discharged from hospital, and 7 patients died in hospital (18%). Of these 7 deaths, 6 patients died of pulmonary complications. Inhospital complications occurred in 11 patients (28%). Of the patients discharged from the hospital, 14 died during a mean follow-up period of 54 days. Mean and median survival were 49 and 24 days, respectively (range, 1 to 448), and median hospital stay was 3 days (range, 1 to 46).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of combined airway and esophageal pathology using a double stenting approach is safe, feasible, provides reasonable immediate palliation of symptoms, and is associated with acceptable morbidity. It is a palliative procedure that allows for early hospital discharge of patients who are diagnosed with an incurable malignancy.

Palliative Endoscopic Therapy of Esophageal Cancer

Background

This is a review of endoscopic therapy in the setting of palliative management of patients suffering from esophageal cancer (EC). Unfortunately, many cases of EC present in a stage of disease in which curative therapy is not possible. The maintenance of quality of life includes the ability to swallow and of oral feeding, pain control, and the prevention of bleeding.

Methods

A review of the current literature was performed.

Results

Many endoscopic methods are available for the management of dysphagia, of which dilation, endoluminal tumor destruction, stenting, and brachytherapy are the most common.

Conclusion

Surgical palliation should be avoided as much as possible since the alternatives show at least the same efficacy and have fewer complications.

Stent-associated esophagorespiratory fistulas: incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Esophageal self-expandable stents (SESs) effectively treat strictures and leaks but may be complicated by a stent-associated esophagorespiratory fistula (SERF). Little is known about SERFs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, morbidity, mortality, and risk factors for SERF.

DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

SETTING

Single referral center.

PATIENTS

All adults undergoing esophageal SES placement during a 10-year period.

INTERVENTION

Stent placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Occurrence of SERF, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 16 of 397 (4.0%) patients developed SERF at a median of 5 months after stent placement (range 0.4-53 months) including 6 of 94 (6%), 10 of 71 (14%), and 0 of 232 (0%) of those with lesions in the proximal, middle, and distal esophagus, respectively (overall P < .001). SERF occurred in 10% of those with proximal and mid-esophageal lesions, including 14% with benign strictures, 9% with malignant strictures, and none with other indications for SES placement (P = .27). The risk was highest (18%) in patients with benign anastomotic strictures. Risk factors for development of SERF included a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (odds ratio [OR] 1.47 for every 1-point increase; P = .04) and history of radiation therapy (OR 9.41; P = .03). Morbidity associated with SERF included need for lifelong feeding tubes in 11 of 22 (50%) and/or tracheostomy or mechanical ventilation in 5 of 22 (23%). Median survival after diagnosis was 4.5 months (range 0.35-67), and 7 patients survived less than 30 days.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, limited statistical power.

CONCLUSION

SERF is a morbid complication of SES placement for strictures of the proximal and mid-esophagus. The dominant risk factors for development of SERF are prior radiation therapy and comorbidity score.