Surgical Repair vs Stent for Esophageal Perforation: A Multi-institutional Database Analysis

Abstract

Endoscopic esophageal stenting is used as an alternative to surgical repair for esophageal perforation. Multi-institutional studies supporting stenting are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical repair and esophageal stenting in patients with esophageal perforation using a nationally representative database. We hypothesized that mortality between these approaches would not be different. The Premier Healthcare Database was used to compare adult inpatients with esophageal perforation receiving either surgical repair or esophageal stenting from 2009 to 2019. Patients receiving intervention ≤7 days of admission were included in the analysis. Patients receiving both stent and repair on the same day were excluded. The composite outcome of interest was death or discharge to hospice. Logistic regression was used to evaluate independent predictors of death or hospice, adjusting for comorbidities. There were 2543 patients with esophageal perforation identified who received repair (1314 [51.7%]) or stenting (1229 [48.3%]). Stenting increased from 7.0% in 2009 to 78.1% in 2019. Patients receiving repair were more likely to be female and White and had fewer Elixhauser comorbidities. Death or discharge to hospice was more common after stent (134/1314 [10.2%] repair vs 199/1229 [16.2%] stent; P < .001); however, after adjustment for comorbidities, logistic regression suggested that death or hospice discharge was similar between approaches (stent vs repair: odds ratio, 1.074; 95% CI, 0.81-1.42; P= .622). Hospital length of stay was shorter after stenting (stent vs repair coefficient,-4.09; P < .001). In patients with esophageal perforation, the odds for death or discharge to hospice were similar for esophageal stenting compared with surgical repair.