Background The impact of cardiorespiratory comorbidity on operative outcomes after esophagectomy remains controversial. This study investigated the effect of cardiorespiratory comorbidity on postoperative complications for patients treated for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Patients and Methods A European multicenter cohort study from five high-volume esophageal cancer centers including patients treated between 2010 and 2017 was conducted. The effect of cardiorespiratory comorbidity and respiratory function upon postoperative outcomes was assessed. Results In total 1590 patients from five centers were included; 274 (17.2%) had respiratory comorbidity, and 468 (29.4%) had cardiac comorbidity. Respiratory comorbidity was associated with increased risk of overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, pneumonia, increased Clavien–Dindo score, and critical care and hospital length of stay. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, respiratory comorbidity was associated with increased risk of anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–3.04], pneumonia (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10–2.47), and any pulmonary complication (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.04–2.22), an effect which was not observed following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone. Cardiac comorbidity was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and pulmonary complications, respiratory failure, and Clavien–Dindo score ≥ IIIa. Among all patients, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio > 70% was associated with reduced risk of overall postoperative complications, cardiovascular complications, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary complications, and pneumonia. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that cardiorespiratory comorbidity and impaired pulmonary function are associated with increased risk of postoperative complications after esophagectomy performed in high-volume European centers. Given the observed interaction with neoadjuvant approach, these data indicate a potentially modifiable index of perioperative risk.

Opinion statementPurpose of reviewEsophageal stents are used in clinical practice for endoscopic treatment of a wide variety of esophageal diseases and conditions. This review provides key principles and a literature update on the utility and limitations of esophageal stenting in clinical practice.Recent findingsIndications for esophageal stenting can be subdivided into two groups. The first group consists of patients with malignant or benign dysphagia, in which an esophageal stent restores luminal patency. In the past years, temporary stent placement has increasingly been used in the therapeutic management of refractory benign esophageal strictures. When endoscopic repeated bougie dilation and other endoscopic treatment modalities have failed, an esophageal stent could be considered. Based on the literature, a fully covered self-expandable metal stent may be the preferred choice for the treatment of both malignant and benign dysphagia. The second group consists of patients with leakage from the esophageal lumen into the surrounding tissue. Esophageal leakage can be subdivided into three forms, benign esophageal perforations (iatrogenic and spontaneous), anastomotic leakage after reconstructive esophageal surgery, and fistula. In a carefully selected group of patients, a covered esophageal stent may be used for sealing off the leakage, thereby preventing further contamination of the tissue surrounding the defect. The past few years, several validated prediction tools have been developed that may assist clinicians in the selection of patients eligible for esophageal stent placement. Based on retrospective studies and expert opinion, a partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stent may have a role in treatment of esophageal leakage.SummaryResearch do date supports the utilization of esophageal stents for the treatment of malignant or benign dysphagia and esophageal leakage.

Introduction: Short-course external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and intraluminal brachytherapy are both accepted treatments for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. We compared the effects of both treatments from two prospective studies. Methods: We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with metastasized or otherwise incurable esophageal cancer requiring palliation of dysphagia from September 2016 to March 2019. Patients were treated with EBRT in five fractions of 4 Gy. Data were compared with all patients treated with a single brachytherapy dose of 12 Gy in the SIREC (Stent or Intraluminal Radiotherapy for inoperable Esophageal Cancer) trial, both between the original cohorts and between 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts. The primary end point was an improvement of dysphagia at 3 months without reintervention. The secondary end points included toxicity and time-to-effect. Results: A total of 115 patients treated with EBRT and 93 patients who underwent brachytherapy were eligible for analysis. In the original cohorts, dysphagia improved after EBRT in 79% of patients compared with 64% after brachytherapy (p ¼ 0.058). Propensity score matching resulted in 69 patients in each cohort well-balanced at baseline. Improvement of dysphagia was observed in 83% after EBRT versus 64% after brachytherapy (p ¼ 0.048). In responding patients, improvement of dysphagia at 2 weeks was observed in 67% after EBRT compared with 35% after brachytherapy, and the maximum effect was reached after 4 weeks in 55% and 33%, respectively. Severe toxicity

No abstract

Background Time of diagnosis (TOD) of benign esophageal perforation is regarded as an important risk factor for clinical outcome, although convincing evidence is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess whether time between onset of perforation and diagnosis is associated with clinical outcome in patients with iatrogenic esophageal perforation (IEP) and Boerhaave's syndrome (BS). Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library through June 2018 to identify studies. Authors were invited to share individual patient data and a meta-analysis was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42018093473). Patients were subdivided in early (≤ 24 h) and late (> 24 h) TOD and compared with mixed effects multivariable analysis while adjusting age, gender, location of perforation, initial treatment and center. Primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, re-interventions and ICU admission. Results Our meta-analysis included IPD of 25 studies including 576 patients with IEP and 384 with BS. In IEP, early TOD was not associated with overall mortality (8% vs. 13%, OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.8-5.1), but was associated with a 23% decrease in ICU admissions (46% vs. 69%, OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.2), a 22% decrease in re-interventions (23% vs. 45%, OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2-6.7) and a 36% decrease in length of hospital stay (14 vs. 22 days, p < 0.001), compared with late TOD. In BS, no associations between TOD and outcomes were found. When combining IEP and BS, early TOD was associated with a 6% decrease in overall mortality (10% vs. 16%, OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.9), a 19% decrease in re-interventions (26% vs. 45%, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2) and a 35% decrease in mean length of hospital stay (16 vs. 22 days, p = 0.001), compared with late TOD. Conclusions This individual patient data meta-analysis confirms the general opinion that an early (≤ 24 h) compared to a late diagnosis (> 24 h) in benign esophageal perforations, particularly in IEP, is associated with improved clinical outcome. Keywords Esophageal rupture • Individual patient data meta-analysis • Time of diagnosis Abbreviations TOD Time of diagnosis IEP Iatrogenic esophageal perforation BS Boerhaave's syndrome IPDMA Individual patient data meta-analysis LOS Length of hospital stay ICU Intensive care unit CI Confidence interval OR Odds ratio SD Standard deviation and Other Interventional Techniques Results of the current manuscript are (partly) presented as poster during the Digestive Disease Week 2019 (San Diego) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Days 2019 (Prague). The members of the Benign Esophageal Perforation Collaborative Group are listed in "Acknowledgements".

Background and Aims: Endoscopic dilation (ED) is still the mainstay of therapeutic management of benign esophageal strictures (BESs). This study aimed to establish risk factors for refractory BESs and assess longterm clinical outcomes of ED.Methods: We performed a retrospective study in 891 patients who underwent ED from 2003 to 2018 for BESs. We searched electronic medical records in 6 tertiary care centers in the Netherlands for data on clinical outcome of ED. Median follow-up was 39 months. The primary endpoint was risk factors for refractory BESs, defined as factors associated with an increased number of ED sessions during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were time from first to last ED session and adverse events.Results: Dilation up to 13 to 15 mm was associated with a higher number of ED sessions than dilation up to 16 to 18 mm (5.0 vs 4.1; hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; P Z .001). Compared with peptic strictures, anastomotic (4.9 vs 3.6; HR, 2.1; P < .001), radiation (5.0 vs 3.6; HR, 3.0; P < .001), caustic (7.2 vs 3.6; HR, 2.7; P < .001), and postendotherapy (3.9 vs 3.6; HR, 1.8; P Z .005) strictures were associated with a higher number of ED sessions. After 1 year of follow-up, the proportions of patients who remained free of ED was 75% in anastomotic, 71% in radiation, 70% in peptic, 83% in postendotherapy, and 62% in caustic strictures. Esophageal perforation occurred in 23 ED sessions (.4%) in 22 patients (2.4%).Conclusions: More than 60% of patients with BESs remain free of ED after 1 year of follow-up. Because dilation up to 16 to 18 mm diameter was associated with fewer ED sessions during follow-up, we suggest that clinicians should consider dilation up to at least 16 mm to reduce the number of ED sessions in these patients.

Background and purpose: A matched comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus brachytherapy recently demonstrated that EBRT appears at least as effective for palliating dysphagia in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. The aim of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after EBRT versus brachytherapy. Materials and methods: In a multicenter prospective cohort study, patients with incurable esophageal cancer requiring palliation of dysphagia were included to undergo EBRT (20 Gy in 5 fractions). This EBRT cohort was compared to the single-dose 12 Gy brachytherapy cohort of the previously reported SIRECtrial. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for baseline imbalances. The primary endpoint of dysphagia improvement was reported previously. PROs were secondary outcomes and assessed at baseline and 3 months after treatment using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 questionnaires. Results: A total of 115 enrolled EBRT patients and 93 brachytherapy patients were eligible. After matching, 69 well-balanced pairs remained. At follow-up, significant deteriorations in functioning (i.e. physical, role, social), pain, appetite loss, and trouble with taste were observed after brachytherapy. In the EBRT group, such deterioration was observed only for role functioning, while significant improvements in trouble with eating and pain were found. Between-group comparison showed mostly comparable PRO changes, but significantly favored EBRT with regard to nausea, vomiting, pain, and appetite loss. Conclusion: Short course EBRT results in similar or better PROs at 3 months after treatment compared to single-dose brachytherapy for the palliation of malignant dysphagia. These findings further support its use and inclusion in clinical practice guidelines.

No abstract