Medical management of iatrogenic esophageal perforations

Opinion statement Esophageal perforation is an uncommon, potentially disastrous occurrence with high mortality rates even when managed with surgery. Over the past few decades, several case series have shown that nonoperative management is a feasible option in some patients, although the criteria for selecting such patients are neither firmly established nor accepted by all those who manage these critical patients. The decision to manage a patient without surgery should be made collaboratively with a surgeon. No single criterion, with the possible exception of sepsis and shock, mandates surgical management. Randomized, prospective studies comparing surgical and nonsurgical therapy have not been performed. Factors that can affect the decision to proceed nonoperatively include the perforation’s site and size, the patient’s underlying comorbidities, and the patient’s hemodynamic status on presentation. Healthy patients with small, contained perforations who present without sepsis tend to be the best candidates for nonoperative management. Intravenous antibiotics and cessation of oral intake should be instituted immediately, even before confirming the diagnosis. Mediastinal fluid collections and pleural effusions often coexist with esophageal perforations and must be managed concomitantly. Percutaneously placed drains are an important adjunct to therapy when collections are identified. Endoscopic stenting has been introduced as a means to seal the perforation. After embarking on a nonoperative course, patients still may deteriorate and require surgery, so close follow-up is warranted for every patient. When proper nonoperative management strategies are followed, outcomes have been shown to be at least equivalent to those of surgical management in most series. In this review, the principles of patient selection and medical therapy for iatrogenic esophageal perforations are discussed.     

The spectrum of spontaneous and iatrogenic esophageal injury: perforations, Mallory-Weiss tears, and hematomas

Esophageal perforations, Mallory-Weiss tears, and esophageal hematoma involve traumatic injury to the esophagus. These can be iatrogenic, in particular due to esophageal instrumentation, but can also occur spontaneously. The remarkable increase in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy as well as esophageal surgery has made instrumentation the most common cause of esophageal perforation. In many instances, spontaneous perforations are associated with retching and vomiting, which causes a sudden increase in intraesophageal pressure. A high index of suspicion leading to rapid diagnosis and appropriate therapy are needed to optimize clinical outcomes. This article focuses on esophageal perforations, Mallory-Weiss tears, and esophageal hematomas, with emphasis on etiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, and prevention.     

Esophagectomy in esophageal perforations: an analysis

This study aimed to study the factors that are associated with urgent esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal perforations and the impact of this therapy. A retrospective review of all esophageal perforations treated at a tertiary care hospital from January 1984 to January 2012 was performed. Compiling demographics, cause and site of perforations, time to presentation, comorbidities, radiological tests, the length of perforation, the hemodynamic status of the patient, type of treatment required, and outcomes were performed. Univariate, multivariate, and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Of 127 cases of esophageal perforation, it was spontaneous in 44 (35%), iatrogenic in 53 (44%), foreign body ingestion in 22 (17%), and traumatic perforation in 7 (6%) cases. Overall, 85 of the 127 (67%) patients were managed operatively, 35 (27.6%) patients were treated conservatively, and 7 (6.3%) patients were treated by endoscopic stent placement. Of the 85 patients who were managed operatively, 21 (16.5%) required esophagectomies, 13 (15.3%) had esophagectomy with immediate reconstruction, 5 (5.9%) patients had esophagectomy followed by delayed reconstruction, and 3 (3.5%) patients failed primary repair and required an esophagectomy as a secondary definitive procedure. Multivariate analysis revealed that esophagectomy in esophageal perforations was associated with the presence of benign or malignant esophageal stricture (P = 0.001) and a perforation >5 cm (P = 0.001). Mortality was mainly associated with the presence of a benign or malignant esophageal stricture (P = 0.04). The presence of pre‐existing benign or malignant stricture or large perforation (>5 cm) is associated with the need for an urgent esophagectomy with or without immediate reconstruction. Performing esophagectomy was not found to be a significant prognosticator for mortality.     

Selective approach in the treatment of esophageal perforations

BACKGROUND: Treatment of esophageal perforation remains controversial and recommendations vary from initially non-operative to aggressive surgical management. Several factors are responsible for this life-threatening event, which has led to more individualized treatment ensuring adequate pleuromediastinal drainage with sufficient irrigation. We analyzed our data, evaluating morbidity and mortality in this selective approach. METHODS: During 1985 to 2001, 17 of the 38 patients with esophageal perforation treated in our hospital underwent primarily a thoracotomy, wide drainage and debridement of chest/ mediastinum and enteral hyperalimentation. Twenty-one patients (55%) initially were treated non-operatively (NPO, nasogastric tube, hyperalimentation, antibiotics and chest tube), but surgery was required in 9 patients (43%). RESULTS: Most perforations were iatrogenic (45%; 17/38) followed by spontaneous perforations (32%; 12/38). Cervical perforations were managed earlier (< 24 h) than thoracic tears, 8/10 (80%) and 17/28 (61%) respectively. Initial conservative treatment failed in all spontaneous ruptures and more in thoracic lesions (62%) than in cervical lesions (13%). Most patients with thoracic perforations and 'free' intrathoracic contamination underwent primary surgery. Surgery with adequate drainage (n = 23) was based on signs of sepsis, empyema and progression of pneumomediastinum/thorax. Mortality occurred in one patient (3%), initially treated conservatively. Median intensive care and duration of hospitalization were not different between the conservative (5 and 7 days, respectively) and the primary surgical approach (21 and 27 days, respectively), but were higher after secondary surgery (13 and 50 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous esophageal perforations require early surgical exploration with drainage and irrigation of mediastinum and pleural cavity, while most iatrogenic lesions can be managed conservatively. Cervical perforations can be treated adequately non-operatively, but thoracic perforations often require surgical intervention.     

Selective approach in the treatment of esophageal perforations

Background: Treatment of esophageal perforation remains controversial and recommendations vary from initially non‐operative to aggressive surgical management. Several factors are responsible for this life‐threatening event, which has led to more individualized treatment ensuring adequate pleuromediastinal drainage with sufficient irrigation. We analyzed our data, evaluating morbidity and mortality in this selective approach. Methods: During 1985 to 2001, 17 of the 38 patients with esophageal perforation treated in our hospital underwent primarily a thoracotomy, wide drainage and debridement of chest/mediastinum and enteral hyperalimentation. Twenty‐one patients (55%) initially were treated non‐operatively (NPO, nasogastric tube, hyperalimentation, antibiotics and chest tube), but surgery was required in 9 patients (43%). Results: Most perforations were iatrogenic (45%; 17/38) followed by spontaneous perforations (32%; 12/38). Cervical perforations were managed earlier (<24?h) than thoracic tears, 8/10 (80%) and 17/28 (61%) respectively. Initial conservative treatment failed in all spontaneous ruptures and more in thoracic lesions (62%) than in cervical lesions (13%). Most patients with thoracic perforations and ‘free’ intrathoracic contamination underwent primary surgery. Surgery with adequate drainage (n?=?23) was based on signs of sepsis, empyema and progression of pneumomediastinum/thorax. Mortality occurred in one patient (3%), initially treated conservatively. Median intensive care and duration of hospitalization were not different between the conservative (5 and 7 days, respectively) and the primary surgical approach (21 and 27 days, respectively), but were higher after secondary surgery (13 and 50 days, respectively). Conclusions: Spontaneous esophageal perforations require early surgical exploration with drainage and irrigation of mediastinum and pleural cavity, while most iatrogenic lesions can be managed conservatively. Cervical perforations can be treated adequately non‐operatively, but thoracic perforations often require surgical intervention.     

Endoscopic therapies for acute esophageal perforations and leaks

Esophageal perforation is a serious condition with high morbidity and mortality. Management is optimized by prompt recognition and intervention in the context of a multidisciplinary approach. Specific treatment is dependent upon several factors, including clinical status, type and location of perforation, concomitant esophageal pathology, time delay to intervention, and available expertise. From a technical perspective, the principles of therapy include perforation closure, diversion, and drainage. Minimally invasive endoluminal therapy, including clips, stents, endoscopic suturing, and vacuum-assisted sponge therapy, represents a viable option in selected cases. Proper patient selection, technical proficiency, and recognition of the advantages and caveats of available devices are important determinants of successful endotherapy and clinical outcome.     

Nonoperative treatment of four esophageal perforations with hemostatic clips

Spontaneous or iatrogenic esophageal perforations are despite advances of modern surgery and intensive care medicine still potentially life-threatening events with a considerable mortality rate. Recently, encouraging results on the sealing of esophageal perforations by placement of endoluminal prostheses were reported. However, if the perforation is very proximal (close to the larynx) or very distal (involving the cardia), the situation is to our experience unsuitable for stent therapy. In these special cases non-operative treatment is still possible by application of hemostatic metal clips. We present four cases unsuitable for stent therapy where the perforation was sealed by endoscopic clip application. All patients had an uneventful recovery. Non-operative treatment of esophageal perforations with hemostatic metal clips is feasible and safe in cases not treatable with self-expanding metal stents.     

Temporary esophageal stenting allows healing of esophageal perforations following atrial fibrillation ablation procedures

BACKGROUND: Left atrial catheter ablation (LACA) has emerged as a successful method to eliminate atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent reports have described atrio-esophageal fistulas, often resulting in death, from this procedure. Temporary esophageal stenting is an established therapy for malignant esophageal disease. We describe the first case of successful temporary esophageal stenting for an esophageal perforation following LACA. CASE: A 48-year-old man with symptomatic drug refractory lone AF underwent an uneventful LACA. Fifty-nine ablations with an 8-mm tip ablation catheter (30 seconds, 70 Watts, 55 degrees C), as guided by 3-D NavX mapping, were performed in the left atrium to isolate the pulmonary veins as well as a left atrial flutter and roof ablation line. In addition, complex atrial electrograms in AF and sites of vagal innervation were ablated. Two weeks later, he presented with sub-sternal chest pain, fever, and dysphagia. A chest CT showed a 3-mm esophageal perforation at the level of the left atrium with mediastinal soiling and no pericardial effusion. An urgent upper endoscopy with placement of a PolyFlex removable esophageal stent to seal off the esophago-mediastinal fistula was performed. After 3 weeks of i.v. antibiotics, naso-jejunal tube feedings, and esophageal stenting, the perforation resolved and the stent was removed. Over 18 months of follow-up, there have been no other complications, and he has returned to a physically active life and remains free from AF on previously ineffective anti-arrhythmic drugs. CONCLUSION: Early diagnosis of esophageal perforations following LACA may allow temporary esophageal stenting with successful esophageal healing. Prompt chest CT scans with oral and i.v. contrast should be considered in any patient with sub-sternal chest pain or dysphagia following LACA.     

Recurrent spontaneous esophageal rupture

Spontaneous rupture of the esophagus is a relatively uncommon event, and recurrent rupture is extremely rare. We present a patient who experienced and survived 2 spontaneous perforations of the esophagus, occurring 6 years apart. A 43-year-old man was admitted to our hospital with upper abdominal pain after vomiting. Esophagoscopy, esophagogram, and computed tomography were suggestive of esophageal rupture. Emergency left thoracolaparotomy revealed a 20-mm perforation of the left lower esophageal wall that had been previously repaired. After the perforation was repaired with a single-layer closure, the mediastinum and pleural cavity were drained. The patient recovered well and was discharged from the hospital on postoperative day 29. To the best of our knowledge, only 7 previous cases of recurrent spontaneous esophageal perforation have been reported in the literature.     

乙状结肠自发性穿孔的诊治分析

目的探讨自发性乙状结肠穿孔的临床诊断和治疗方法。方法回顾性分析自发性乙状结肠穿孔16例患者的临床资料,总结有关诊断和治疗问题。结果本组平均年龄67.8岁,伴有高血压9例,慢性支气管炎11例,前列腺增生7例,糖尿病6例,16例均经手术及病理报告而明确诊断,术前误诊率为81.2%。术后发生切口感染裂开、肺部感染吻合口瘘等并发症9例,12例治疗痊愈出院;死亡4例(25%)中主要死于肺部感染及感染中毒性休克。结论乙状结肠自发性穿孔多发于老年患者,合并症多、误诊率高、病死率高。应提高对老年急腹症的认识,认真询问病史,早诊断、早手术是治疗本病的根本措施,正确处理穿孔、彻底清洗、充分引流、治疗合并症是治疗该病的关键。     

Successful conservative therapy for mediastinitis caused by multiple esophageal perforations

A 77-year-old man was admitted to our hospital on a diagnosis of acute mediastinits, 17 days after he had high fever. Computed tomography of the chest revealed an abscess cavity in the left upper mediastinum. Endoscopic examination showed multiple pin-hole perforations in the upper esophagus from 23 to 24cm distal from the incisors and drainage through the perforation. We diagnosed acute mediastinitis caused by multiple esophageal perforations of unknown etiology. We initiated conservative therapy. Oral intake was restarted on the 17th day because radiological examination showed the esophageal perforation had closed. The patient was discharged on the 36th day from admission. Although mediastinitis caused by esophageal perforation often demands surgical treatment, conservative nonoperative therapy was successful in this patient.     

Endoscopic clip application for closure of esophageal perforations caused by EMR

BACKGROUND: With increasing use of EMR for early stage esophageal carcinoma, the number of cases of iatrogenic esophageal perforation is likely to increase. This study evaluated the results of endoscopic clip application for treatment of perforations caused by EMR in patients with esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: Among 185 patients who underwent EMR for esophageal carcinoma, esophageal perforation occurred in 3 patients (1.6%). Metallic clips were immediately applied endoscopically to close the perforations. OBSERVATIONS: All 3 patients were observed closely and were managed conservatively (intravenous hyperalimentation, antibiotics) after closure of the perforation. They were discharged without any further serious complication. CONCLUSIONS: When esophageal perforation caused by EMR is immediately recognized, endoscopic application of metallic clips is appropriate therapy. However, patients must be carefully monitored for the development of generalized mediastinitis.     

Incidence, clinical management and outcomes of esophageal perforations after endoscopic dilatation

BACKGROUND: Esophageal dilatation is performed for the treatment of anatomic and sometimes functional narrowing of the esophageal lumen caused by a variety of benign and malignant conditions. Esophageal perforation is the major complication associated with endoscopic dilatation. AIM: The object of this study was to assess the incidence of perforation, management and outcomes after endoscopic esophageal dilatation. METHODS: All patients who underwent endoscopic esophageal dilatation at our institution from June 2001 to December 2006 were identified. Data were obtained by searching our prospectively collected electronic database (MEDOS AG, Langenselbold, Germany), which includes all endoscopic reports as well as discharge summaries of patients who have undergone endoscopy in our department. RESULTS: 248 patients (148 male, 100 female, mean age 58 years, range 14-87 years) underwent 365 esophageal dilatations: 74 pneumatic balloon dilatations for achalasia, 79 balloon dilatations for other reasons such as tumors, peptic stenosis, or post-radiotherapy stenosis and 212 dilatations with Savary bougies. The overall incidence of perforation based on the number of procedures was 2.2% (8 perforations/365 procedures) and 3.2% (8/248 patients) based on the number of patients. The perforation rate was 1.9% for bougie dilatation, 0% for balloon dilatation and 5-4% for pneumatic balloon dilatation for achalasia. Five patients were treated surgically and 3 patients were managed conservatively. The mean hospital stay was 14 days (7-33 days). One patient in whom the perforation was recognized 16 days after the dilatation died. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic esophageal dilatation is a safe procedure for the palliation of malignant strictures, for the management of benign strictures as well as for the therapy of achalasia. The perforation rate after these procedures is low. Early recognition of the perforation is associated with a good outcome. Small perforations can be treated conservatively.