Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

Spectrum of oesophageal perforations and their influence on management

Background

Oesophageal perforations are associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. A spectrum of aetiologies and clinical presentations has resulted in a variety of operative and non-operative management strategies. This analysis focused on the impact of these strategies in a single specialist centre.

Methods

All patients with oesophageal perforation managed in a single oesophagogastric unit in the UK between January 2002 and December 2012 were identified. Gastric perforations and anastomotic leaks were excluded. Data were verified using an endoscopy database, electronic and paper records. Aetiology of perforation, management and outcomes were analysed.

Results

There were 101 adult patients with oesophageal perforation. Complete records were not available for five patients and they were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 69·5 years. Thoracic perforations were present in 84 per cent of patients. There were 51 spontaneous perforations, 41 iatrogenic and four related to foreign bodies. Oesophageal malignancy was present in 11 patients. Forty-four patients were managed surgically, 47 without operation and five patients were considered unfit for active treatment. The in-hospital mortality rate for treated patients was 24 per cent and median length of hospital stay was 31·5 days.

Conclusion

The management of oesophageal perforation requires specialist multidisciplinary input. It is best provided in an environment familiar with the range of treatment modalities. Management decisions should be guided primarily by the degree of contamination rather than the aetiology of the defect. The routine use of stents is unproven and controversial.

Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies

BACKGROUND

The current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the efficacy of available treatment methods are not well defined.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of esophageal perforations published from January 2000 to April 2012 and subjected a proportion of the retrieved data to a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality immediately after esophageal perforation.

RESULTS

Analysis of 75 studies resulted in a pooled mortality of 11.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.7-14.3: 75 studies with 2,971 patients] with a mean hospital stay of 32.9 days (95 % CI 16.9-48.9: 28 studies with 1,233 patients). Cervical perforations had a pooled mortality of 5.9 %, thoracic perforations 10.9 %, and intraabdominal perforations 13.2 %. Mortality after esophageal perforation secondary to foreign bodies was 2.1 %, iatrogenic perforation 13.2 %, and spontaneous perforation 14.8 %. Treatment started within 24 h after the event resulted in a mortality rate of 7.4 % compared with 20.3 % in patients treated later (risk ratio 2.279, 95 % CI 1.632-3.182). Primary repair was associated with a pooled mortality of 9.5 %, esophagectomy 13.8 %, T-tube or any other tube repair 20.0 %, and stent-grafting 7.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of recent studies indicate that mortality after esophageal perforation is high despite any definitive surgical or conservative strategy. Stent-grafting is associated with somewhat lower mortality rates, but studies may be biased by patient selection and limited experience.

Management of esophageal perforation in 120 consecutive patients: clinical impact of a structured treatment algorithm

INTRODUCTION

The therapy of esophageal perforation is still challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the etiology, specific treatment, and outcome of esophageal disruption in order to generate an optimal therapeutic approach to improve patient's outcome.

METHODS

We reviewed the cases of 120 consecutive patients with esophageal perforation treated within 10 years.

RESULTS

Iatrogenic perforation was the most frequent cause of esophageal perforation (58.3 %); Boerhaave's syndrome was detected in 15 cases (6.8 %). Surgery was performed in 66 patients (55 %), 17 (14 %) patients received conservative treatment and 37 (31 %) patients underwent endoscopic stenting after tumorous perforation. Statistically significant impact on mean survival had Boerhaave's syndrome (p = 0.005), initial sepsis (p = 0.002), pleural effusion/empyema (p = 0.001), mediastinitis (p = 0.003), peritonitis (p = 0.001), and redo-surgery (p = 0.000). Overall mortality rate was 11.7 %, in the esophagectomy group 17 % and in the patients with Boerhaave's syndrome 33.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

An approach considering etiology and extent of perforation, diagnostic delay, and septic status is required to improve patient's outcome. Primary repair is feasible in patients without intrinsic esophageal disease and evidence of sepsis. The greater the diagnostic delay, the more the destruction of the esophageal wall especially in the case of septic esophageal disease, thus the stronger the argument for esophagectomy if anatomically and/or oncologically possible.

Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies

BACKGROUND

The current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the efficacy of available treatment methods are not well defined.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of esophageal perforations published from January 2000 to April 2012 and subjected a proportion of the retrieved data to a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality immediately after esophageal perforation.

RESULTS

Analysis of 75 studies resulted in a pooled mortality of 11.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.7-14.3: 75 studies with 2,971 patients] with a mean hospital stay of 32.9 days (95 % CI 16.9-48.9: 28 studies with 1,233 patients). Cervical perforations had a pooled mortality of 5.9 %, thoracic perforations 10.9 %, and intraabdominal perforations 13.2 %. Mortality after esophageal perforation secondary to foreign bodies was 2.1 %, iatrogenic perforation 13.2 %, and spontaneous perforation 14.8 %. Treatment started within 24 h after the event resulted in a mortality rate of 7.4 % compared with 20.3 % in patients treated later (risk ratio 2.279, 95 % CI 1.632-3.182). Primary repair was associated with a pooled mortality of 9.5 %, esophagectomy 13.8 %, T-tube or any other tube repair 20.0 %, and stent-grafting 7.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of recent studies indicate that mortality after esophageal perforation is high despite any definitive surgical or conservative strategy. Stent-grafting is associated with somewhat lower mortality rates, but studies may be biased by patient selection and limited experience.

Esophageal perforation: clinical patterns and outcomes from a patient cohort of Western Norway

BACKGROUND

Esophageal perforation is a rare, often life-threatening condition, and management remains challenging.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients with esophageal perforation treated at two university hospitals between 2000 and 2010. Pertinent data from hospital records were retrieved for statistical calculations and evaluation of perforation score.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients [47% female, median age 62 years (range 15-88)] were included. The annual incidence was 4.7/1,000,000. Perforations were spontaneous in 14 patients (30%), iatrogenic in 25 (53%), and caused by trauma and foreign body impaction in 8 patients (17%). ASA score (p = 0.004), perforation localization (p = 0.001), diagnostic delay (p = 0.002), and perforation score (p < 0.001) differed significantly between patient groups with different etiology, but not between groups with different outcomes. Early diagnosis (≤24 h) was significantly associated with a low perforation score (p = 0.033). A non-operative approach was employed in 26 patients (55%) - more commonly for proximally localized perforations (p = 0.045). The non-operative group showed lower severe complication rates (p = 0.033), shorter ICU stays (p < 0.001) and durations of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.022). The overall 30-day mortality was 23.4%.

CONCLUSION

Careful clinical evaluation and appropriate, individualized treatment are important. The high mortality may be partly explained by the underlying disease and the complexity of the clinical condition in many patients.

Esophageal perforations

The incidence of esophageal perforation (EP) has risen with the increasing use of endoscopic procedures, which are currently the most frequent causes of EP. Despite decades of clinical experience, innovations in surgical technique and advances in intensive care management, EP still represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. EP is a devastating event and mortality hovers close to 20%. Ambiguous presentations leading to misdiagnosis and delayed treatment and the difficulties in management are responsible for the high morbidity and mortality rates. A high variety of treatment options are available ranging from observational medical therapy to radical esophagectomy. The potential role of interventional endoscopy and the use of stents for the treatment of EP seem interesting but remain to be evaluated. Surgical primary repair, with or without reinforcement, is the preferred approach in patients with EP. Prognosis is mainly determined by the cause, the location of the injury and the delay between perforation and initiation of therapy.

The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches to the management of early esophageal cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, management of early cancer (stages 0-IIA) has comprised esophagectomy, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Recent efforts to improve outcomes and minimize side-effects have focussed on minimally invasive, endoscopic treatments that remove lesions while sparing healthy tissue. This review assesses their safety and efficacy/effectiveness relative to traditional, non-endoscopic treatments for early esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed using Cochrane guidelines. Bibliographic databases searched to identify relevant English language studies published in the last 3 years included: PubMed (i.e., MEDLINE and additional sources), EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS EED, DARE and HTA) databases, EconLit and Web of Science. Web sites of professional associations, relevant cancer organizations, clinical practice guidelines, and clinical trials were also searched. Two independent reviewers selected, critically appraised, and extracted information from studies.

RESULTS

The review included 75 studies spanning 3124 patients and 10 forms of treatment. Most studies were of short term duration and non-comparative. Adverse events reported across studies of endoscopic techniques were similar and less significant compared to those in the studies of non-endoscopic techniques. Complete response rates were slightly lower for photodynamic therapy (PDT) relative to the other endoscopic techniques, possibly due to differences in patient populations across studies. No studies compared overall or cause-specific survival in patients who received endoscopic treatments vs. those who received non-endoscopic treatments.

DISCUSSION

Based on findings from this review, there is no single "best practice" approach to the treatment of early esophageal cancer.

Palliative cardia resection with gastroesophageal reconstruction for perforated carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction

Iatrogenic perforation of esophageal cancer or cancer of the gastroesophageal (GE) junction is a serious complication that, in addition to short term morbidity and mortality, significantly compromises the success of any subsequent oncological therapy. Here, we present an 82-year-old man with iatrogenic perforation of adenocarcinoma of the GE junction. Immediate surgical intervention included palliative resection and GE reconstruction. In the case of iatrogenic tumor perforation, the primary goal should be adequate palliative (and not oncological) therapy. The different approaches for iatrogenic perforation, i.e. surgical versus endoscopic therapy are discussed.

Thirty-four cases of esophageal perforation: the experience of a district general hospital in the UK

Esophageal perforation is uncommon and traditionally has a high rate of morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to perform a 13-year retrospective review of the cases managed in our district general hospital. Thirty-four cases of esophageal perforation diagnosed between 1995 and 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 20 males and 14 females with a median age of 64 (range 23-86) years. The etiology of the perforations were Boerhaave's syndrome (n= 19), therapeutic endoscopy (n= 9), diagnostic endoscopy (n= 2), gastric lavage injury (n= 1), foreign body (n= 1), blunt chest trauma (n= 1), and spontaneous tumor perforation (n= 1). Only 11 cases (32%) had evidence of surgical emphysema upon examination. In 50% of cases, another clinical diagnosis was initially suspected. Twenty-four were treated surgically and 10 cases managed non-operatively. Surgical treatment included thoracotomy with primary repair (n= 9), T-tube drainage (n= 7), emergency esophagectomy (n= 1), or intra-operative stent insertion (n= 1). Four cases had primary repair and fundal wrap via abdominal approach without thoracotomy. Two patients were treated with washout and drainage only. Eight patients died overall (in-hospital mortality 23.5%). Esophageal perforations are often initially misdiagnosed and the majority do not have surgical emphysema. There are a wide variety of methods to manage esophageal perforation. Management tailored to the location and size of perforation, degree of contamination, and underlying cause appears to result in a reasonable prognosis.

Spontaneous rupture of the oesophagus

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnosis, management and outcome of patients with spontaneous rupture of the oesophagus in a single centre.

METHODS

Between October 1993 and May 2007, 51 consecutive patients with spontaneous oesophageal rupture were evaluated with contrast radiology and flexible endoscopy. Patients with limited contamination who fulfilled specific criteria were managed by a non-operative approach, whereas the remainder underwent thoracotomy.

RESULTS

The median time to diagnosis was 24 (range 4-604) h. Initial diagnosis was by contrast swallow in 18 of 24 patients, computed tomography in 15 of 17 and endoscopy in 18 of 18. There were no deaths among 17 patients who were managed non-operatively with targeted drainage, intravenous antimicrobials, nasogastric decompression and enteral nutrition. Of 31 patients who underwent primary thoracotomy and oesophageal repair (over a Ttube in 29), 11 died in hospital. Three patients could not be resuscitated adequately and did not have surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous oesophageal rupture represents a spectrum of disease. Accurate radiological and endoscopic evaluation can identify those suitable for radical non-operative treatment and those who require thoracotomy.