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.

Safety and efficacy of oesophageal stenting with simultaneous percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy as a supplementary feeding route in unresectable proximal oesophageal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Proximally located oesophageal cancer poses an especially difficult problem in terms of restoration of patency and the stenting procedure. Supplementary percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) may be useful in these patients. AIM: To assess the safety of the stenting procedure in the proximal oesophagus in patients with unresectable upper oesophageal cancer, performed simultaneously with PEG insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with obstructing upper oesophageal tumours were scheduled for an oesophageal stenting procedure and simultaneous PEG insertion. Degree of dysphagia, body weight loss, daily energy requirement, body mass index and performance status before and after the stenting procedure as well as complications were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients aged 19-88 years were included in the study. Six of them had a fistula to the trachea and underwent stenting of the oesophagus or both the oesophagus and the airway. The technical success rate was 100%. Following the procedure all patients were able to swallow fluids and semi-liquids, and PEG was used as the primary feeding route. Body mass index increased from 20.4 to 21.1 (p = 0.0001), body weight gain improved from -10.1 to +2.0 kg and metabolic requirements improved (p = 0.0001). Also, the Karnofsky score improved significantly (56.7 vs. 65.1, p = 0.0001). Mean survival time was 133 days (range: 36-378). CONCLUSIONS: Stenting of the proximal oesophagus with simultaneous PEG is a safe procedure, allowing the patients to resume oral intake of liquids whilst improving nutritional status and general performance, with an acceptable rate of complications.

Stenting in Palliation of Unresectable Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the safety and effectiveness of stenting using partially covered self-expandable stents in palliation of dysphagia in patients with unresectable esophageal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of hospital records of all patients who underwent esophageal stenting in the period 2008-2015 was performed. The study included patients with unresectable esophageal and esophagogastric cancer. RESULTS: There were 442 patients included. Mean age was 56 years (range 28-89), and 379 were males. In 40 (9.0%) patients, stenting was performed in the cervical, in 150 (39.3%)-in the middle thoracic, in 141 (31.9%)-in lower thoracic esophagus and in 111 (25.1%)-in the esophagogastric junction. Stenting resulted in significant alleviation of dysphagia grade (3.0 vs. 1.0, p = 0.00001). During the follow-up, 55 (12.4%) patients experienced recurrent dysphagia due to tumor or granulation tissue overgrowth, and in 18 (4.1%) patients, migration of the stent occurred, for which an independent risk factor was adjuvant chemo- and/or radiation therapy (p = 0.001). Minor complications included chest pain (54.5%), delayed complete stent expansion (12.0%), feeling of a foreign body (25.3%), hiccup (1.6%), gastroesophageal reflux (45.6%) and post-discharge pneumonia (2.5%). A feeling of a foreign body in the esophagus was significantly more common after stenting of the cervical esophagus (p = 0.0001), and hiccup was more common after stenting of the esophagogastric junction (p = 0.02). Major complications included bleeding (1.3%), respiratory insufficiency (0.7%), esophageal perforation (0.9%) and irregular heartburn (2.3%). Overall procedure-related mortality was 0.4%. The median survival time was 117.8 days (range 2-732). CONCLUSIONS: Stenting is an effective procedure in relieving dysphagia in patients with unresectable malignant esophageal stenosis and is associated with low rate of postoperative and long-term complications.

Endosonography­guided fine­needle aspiration in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis: a randomized study.

INTRODUCTION    There are no widely accepted standards for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. OBJECTIVES    The aim of this study was to assess the relative diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EBUS -FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS -FNA), and to compare them with standard diagnostic techniques such as endobronchial biopsy (EBB), transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB), transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), and mediastinoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS    This was a prospective randomized study including consecutive patients with clinical diagnosis of stage I or II sarcoidosis. EBB, TBLB, and TBNA were performed at baseline in all patients. Subsequently, patients were randomized to group A (EBUS -FNA) or group B (EUS -FNA). Next, a crossover control test was performed: all patients with negative results in group A underwent EUS -FNA and all patients with negative results in group B underwent EBUS -FNA. If sarcoidosis was not confirmed, mediastinoscopy was performed. RESULTS    We enrolled 106 patients, of whom 100 were available for the final analysis. The overall sensitivity and accuracy of standard endoscopic methods were 64% each. When analyzing each of the standard endoscopic methods separately, the diagnosis was confirmed with EBB in 12 patients (12%), with TBLB in 42 patients (42%), and with TBNA in 44 patients (44%). The sensitivity and accuracy of each endosonographic technique were significantly higher than those of EBB+TBLB+TBNA (P = 0.0112 vs P = 0.0134). CONCLUSIONS    The sensitivity and accuracy of EBUS -FNA and EUS -FNA are significantly higher than those of standard endoscopic methods. Moreover, the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS -FNA tend to be higher than those of EBUS -FNA.