Utility of endoscopic therapy in the management of Boerhaave syndrome

Background/aims: The optimal intervention for Boerhaave perforation has not been determined. Options include surgical repair with/without a pedicled muscle flap, T tube placement, esophageal resection or diversion, or an endoscopic approach. All management strategies require adequate drainage and nutritional support. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes following Boerhaave perforation treated with surgery, endoscopic therapy, or both. Patients and methods: We performed a 10-year review of our prospectively maintained databases of adult patients with Boerhaave perforations. We documented clinical presentation, extent of injury, primary intervention, “salvage” treatment (any treatment for persistent leak), and outcome. Results were analyzed using the Fisher’s exact and Kruskal – Wallis tests. Results: Between October 2004 and October 2014, 235 patients presented with esophageal leak/fistula with 17 Boerhaave perforations. Median age was 68 years. Median length of perforation was 1.25 cm (range 0.8 – 5 cm). Four patients presented with systemic sepsis (two treated with palliative stent and two surgically). Primary endotherapy was performed for eight (50 %) and primary surgery for eight (50 %) patients. Two endotherapy patients required multiple stents. Median stent duration was 61 days (range 56 – 76). “Salvage” intervention was required in 2/8 (25 %) endotherapy patients and 1/8 (13 %) surgery patient (stent). All patients healed without resection/reconstruction. There were no deaths in the surgically treated group and two in the endotherapy group (stented with palliative intent due to poor systemic condition). Readmission within 30 days occurred in 3/6 of alive endotherapy patients (50 %) and 0/8 surgery patients. Re-intervention within 30 days was required for one endotherapy patient. Conclusion: Endoscopic repair of Boerhaave perforations can be useful in carefully selected patients without evidence of systemic sepsis. Endoscopic therapy such as stenting is particularly valuable as a “salvage” intervention. The benefits of endoscopic therapy and esophageal preservation are offset against an increased risk of readmission in patients primarily treated endoscopically.