Whether prophylactic intraoperative chest drain insertion in esophageal atresia-tracheoesophageal fistula is an evidence-based practice or just a prejudice: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Validation of a PHIS Esophageal Atresia and Tracheoesophageal Fistula Cohort in ICD-10

OBJECTIVE

Validation of a contemporary International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) congenital esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal atresia (EA/TEF) cohort in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database.

STUDY DESIGN

Database study, validation.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

METHODS

Search methods used to validate an ICD-9-CM EA/TEF cohort in PHIS were modified for ICD-10-CM. A retrospectively and prospectively maintained clinical database at a single high-volume EA/TEF center was used for comparison. Patients treated between October 1, 2015 and July 31, 2022 were included. Searches progressively narrowed the cohort by ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes, expansion to include incorrectly coded as 'iatrogenic, age less than 30 days, and use of at least 1 ICD-10-CM procedure code. Results of PHIS data and institution data were compared for accuracy.

RESULTS

The most refined search of PHIS and the EA/TEF clinical database yielded 93 and 84 patients, respectively. The sensitivity was 99% and positive predictive value was 94%. A PHIS search using these methods and encompassing 49 children's hospitals yielded an EA/TEF cohort of 2479 patients.

CONCLUSION

We present a validated search method in the PHIS database to identify a high-fidelity cohort of EA/TEF patients for multi-institutional study. We have demonstrated that a carefully maintained clinical database may be used to validate cohorts in PHIS. This cohort allows for improved practice variability and outcomes study of EA/TEF patients. Similar methods may be employed to generate other rare disease cohorts in PHIS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

A Minimally Interventional Approach to Oesophageal Atresia Repair With Early Enteral Feeding is Safe, Optimises Neonatal Outcomes, and Reduces Resource use

PURPOSE

Recent series of newborn Oesophageal Atresia (OA) repair continue to report widespread use of chest drains, gastrostomy, routine contrast studies and parenteral nutrition (PN) despite evidence suggesting these are superfluous. We report outcomes using a minimally interventional approach to post-operative recovery.

METHODS

Ethically approved (15/WA/0153), single-centre, retrospective case-note review of consecutive infants with OA 2000-2022. Infants with OA and distal trache-oesophageal fistula undergoing primary oesophageal anastomosis at initial surgery were included (including those with comorbidities such as duodenal atresia, anorectal malformation and cardiac lesions). Our practice includes routine use of a trans-anastomotic tube (TAT), no routine chest drain nor gastrostomy, early enteral and oral feeding, no routine PN and no routine contrast study. Data are median (IQR).

RESULTS

Of total 186 cases of OA treated during the time period, 157 met the inclusion criteria of which 2 were excluded as casenotes unavailable. TAT was used in 150 infants. A chest drain was required in 13 (8%) and two infants had a neonatal gastrostomy. Enteral feeds were started on postoperative day 2 (2-3), full enteral feeds established by day 4 (4-6) and oral feeds started on day 5 (4-8). PN was required in 15%. Median postoperative length of stay was 10 days (8-17). Progress was quicker in term infants than preterm. One infant died of cardiac disease prior to neonatal discharge. Two planned post-operative contrast studies were performed (surgeon preference) and a further 7 due to clinical suspicion of anastomotic leak. Contrast study was therefore avoided in 94%. There were 2 anastomotic leaks; both presented clinically at day 4 and day 8 after oral feeds had been started.

CONCLUSION

Our minimally interventional approach is safe. It facilitates prompt recovery with lower resource use, reduced demand on nursing staff, reduced radiation burden, and early discharge home compared to published series without adversely affecting outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

Outcome of esophageal atresia: inborn versus outborn patients

Esophageal atresia (EA) is a rare congenital disease which is usually not of the detected prenatally. Due to the lack of prenatal diagnosis, some newborns with EA are born outside of specialized centers. Nevertheless, centralized care of EA has been proposed, even if a clear volume-outcome association in EA management remains unconfirmed. Furthermore, whether outcomes differ between outborn and inborn patients with EA has not been systematically investigated. Therefore, this single-center, retrospective study aimed to investigate EA management and outcomes with a special focus on inborn versus outborn patients. The following data were extracted from the medical records of infants with EA from 2009 to 2019: EA type, associated anomalies, complications, and long-term outcome. Patients were allocated into inborn and outborn groups. Altogether, 57 patients were included. Five patients were excluded (referral before surgery, loss of data, death before surgery [n = 1], and incorrect diagnosis [diverticulum, n = 1]). Among all patients, the overall survival rate was 96%, with no mortalities among outborn patients. The overall hospitalization period was shorter for outborn patients. The median follow-up durations were 3.8 years and 3.2 years for inborn and outborn patients, respectively. Overall, 15% of patients underwent delayed primary anastomosis (long-gap atresia [n = 4] and other reasons [n = 4]). Early complications included three anastomotic leakages and one post-operative fistula; 28% of patients developed strictures, which required dilatation, and 38% of patients showed relevant gastroesophageal reflux, which required fundoplication, without any differences between the groups. The two groups had comparable low mortality and expected high morbidity with no significant differences in outcome. The outborn group showed nonsignificant trends toward lower morbidity and shorter hospitalization periods, which might be explained by the overall better clinical status.

Necessity of Prophylactic Extrapleural Chest Tube During Primary Surgical Repair of Esophageal Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Esophageal atresia is corrected surgically by anastomosing and recreating esophageal continuity. To allow the removal of excess fluid and air from the anastomosis, a prophylactic and temporary intraoperative chest tube (IOCT) has traditionally been placed in this area during surgery. However, whether the potential benefits of this prophylactic IOCT overweigh the potential harms is unclear.

Objective

To assess the benefits and harms of using a prophylactic IOCT during primary surgical repair of esophageal atresia.

Data Sources

We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2021, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-(Web of Science). Search was performed from inception until December 3rd, 2021.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) assessing the effect of a prophylactic IOCT during primary surgical repair of esophageal atresia and observational studies identified during our searches for RCT.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers screened studies and performed data extraction. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE and ROBINS-I.

PROSPERO Registration

A protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021257834).

Results

We included three RCTs randomizing 162 neonates, all at overall "some risk of bias." The studies compared the placement of an IOCT vs. none. The meta-analysis did not identify any significant effect of profylacitic IOCT, as confidence intervals were compatible with no effect, but the analyses suggests that the placement of an IOCT might lead to an increase in all-cause mortality (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.76-3.65; three trials), serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.58-2.00; three trials), intervention-requiring pneumothorax (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.28-9.50; two trials), and anastomosis leakage (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.63-4.40). None of our included studies assessed esophageal stricture or pain. Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes.

Conclusions

Evidence from RCTs does not support the routine use of a prophylactic IOCT during primary surgical repair of esophageal atresia.