Cargando…
Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis
IMPORTANCE: Surgical treatment comparisons in rare diseases are difficult secondary to the geographic distribution of patients. Fortunately, emerging technologies offer promise to reduce these barriers for research. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the outcomes of the 3 most common surgical appro...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Medical Association
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6824232/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31670805 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.3022 |
_version_ | 1783464702876057600 |
---|---|
author | Gelbard, Alexander Anderson, Catherine Berry, Lynne D. Amin, Milan R. Benninger, Michael S. Blumin, Joel H. Bock, Jonathan M. Bryson, Paul C. Castellanos, Paul F. Chen, Sheau-Chiann Clary, Matthew S. Cohen, Seth M. Crawley, Brianna K. Dailey, Seth H. Daniero, James J. de Alarcon, Alessandro Donovan, Donald T. Edell, Eric S. Ekbom, Dale C. Fernandes-Taylor, Sara Fink, Daniel S. Franco, Ramon A. Garrett, C. Gaelyn Guardiani, Elizabeth A. Hillel, Alexander T. Hoffman, Henry T. Hogikyan, Norman D. Howell, Rebecca J. Huang, Li-Ching Hussain, Lena K. Johns, Michael M. Kasperbauer, Jan L. Khosla, Sid M. Kinnard, Cheryl Kupfer, Robbi A. Langerman, Alexander J. Lentz, Robert J. Lorenz, Robert R. Lott, David G. Lowery, Anne S. Makani, Samir S. Maldonado, Fabien Mannion, Kyle Matrka, Laura McWhorter, Andrew J. Merati, Albert L. Mori, Matthew C. Netterville, James L. O’Dell, Karla Ongkasuwan, Julina Postma, Gregory N. Reder, Lindsay S. Rohde, Sarah L. Richardson, Brent E. Rickman, Otis B. Rosen, Clark A. Rutter, Michael J. Sandhu, Guri S. Schindler, Joshua S. Schneider, G. Todd Shah, Rupali N. Sikora, Andrew G. Sinard, Robert J. Smith, Marshall E. Smith, Libby J. Soliman, Ahmed M. S. Sveinsdóttir, Sigríður Van Daele, Douglas J. Veivers, David Verma, Sunil P. Weinberger, Paul M. Weissbrod, Philip A. Wootten, Christopher T. Shyr, Yu Francis, David O. |
author_facet | Gelbard, Alexander Anderson, Catherine Berry, Lynne D. Amin, Milan R. Benninger, Michael S. Blumin, Joel H. Bock, Jonathan M. Bryson, Paul C. Castellanos, Paul F. Chen, Sheau-Chiann Clary, Matthew S. Cohen, Seth M. Crawley, Brianna K. Dailey, Seth H. Daniero, James J. de Alarcon, Alessandro Donovan, Donald T. Edell, Eric S. Ekbom, Dale C. Fernandes-Taylor, Sara Fink, Daniel S. Franco, Ramon A. Garrett, C. Gaelyn Guardiani, Elizabeth A. Hillel, Alexander T. Hoffman, Henry T. Hogikyan, Norman D. Howell, Rebecca J. Huang, Li-Ching Hussain, Lena K. Johns, Michael M. Kasperbauer, Jan L. Khosla, Sid M. Kinnard, Cheryl Kupfer, Robbi A. Langerman, Alexander J. Lentz, Robert J. Lorenz, Robert R. Lott, David G. Lowery, Anne S. Makani, Samir S. Maldonado, Fabien Mannion, Kyle Matrka, Laura McWhorter, Andrew J. Merati, Albert L. Mori, Matthew C. Netterville, James L. O’Dell, Karla Ongkasuwan, Julina Postma, Gregory N. Reder, Lindsay S. Rohde, Sarah L. Richardson, Brent E. Rickman, Otis B. Rosen, Clark A. Rutter, Michael J. Sandhu, Guri S. Schindler, Joshua S. Schneider, G. Todd Shah, Rupali N. Sikora, Andrew G. Sinard, Robert J. Smith, Marshall E. Smith, Libby J. Soliman, Ahmed M. S. Sveinsdóttir, Sigríður Van Daele, Douglas J. Veivers, David Verma, Sunil P. Weinberger, Paul M. Weissbrod, Philip A. Wootten, Christopher T. Shyr, Yu Francis, David O. |
author_sort | Gelbard, Alexander |
collection | PubMed |
description | IMPORTANCE: Surgical treatment comparisons in rare diseases are difficult secondary to the geographic distribution of patients. Fortunately, emerging technologies offer promise to reduce these barriers for research. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the outcomes of the 3 most common surgical approaches for idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS), a rare airway disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this international, prospective, 3-year multicenter cohort study, 810 patients with untreated, newly diagnosed, or previously treated iSGS were enrolled after undergoing a surgical procedure (endoscopic dilation [ED], endoscopic resection with adjuvant medical therapy [ERMT], or cricotracheal resection [CTR]). Patients were recruited from clinician practices in the North American Airway Collaborative and an online iSGS community on Facebook. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was days from initial surgical procedure to recurrent surgical procedure. Secondary end points included quality of life using the Clinical COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Questionnaire (CCQ), Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), Eating Assessment Test-10 (EAT-10), the 12-Item Short-Form Version 2 (SF-12v2), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of 810 patients in this cohort, 798 (98.5%) were female and 787 (97.2%) were white, with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range, 43-58 years). Index surgical procedures were ED (n = 603; 74.4%), ERMT (n = 121; 14.9%), and CTR (n = 86; 10.6%). Overall, 185 patients (22.8%) had a recurrent surgical procedure during the 3-year study, but recurrence differed by modality (CTR, 1 patient [1.2%]; ERMT, 15 [12.4%]; and ED, 169 [28.0%]). Weighted, propensity score–matched, Cox proportional hazards regression models showed ED was inferior to ERMT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% CI, 1.8-5.5). Among successfully treated patients without recurrence, those treated with CTR had the best CCQ (0.75 points) and SF-12v2 (54 points) scores and worst VHI-10 score (13 points) 360 days after enrollment as well as the greatest perioperative risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of 810 patients with iSGS, endoscopic dilation, the most popular surgical approach for iSGS, was associated with a higher recurrence rate compared with other procedures. Cricotracheal resection offered the most durable results but showed the greatest perioperative risk and the worst long-term voice outcomes. Endoscopic resection with medical therapy was associated with better disease control compared with ED and had minimal association with vocal function. These results may be used to inform individual patient treatment decision-making. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6824232 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | American Medical Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68242322019-11-18 Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis Gelbard, Alexander Anderson, Catherine Berry, Lynne D. Amin, Milan R. Benninger, Michael S. Blumin, Joel H. Bock, Jonathan M. Bryson, Paul C. Castellanos, Paul F. Chen, Sheau-Chiann Clary, Matthew S. Cohen, Seth M. Crawley, Brianna K. Dailey, Seth H. Daniero, James J. de Alarcon, Alessandro Donovan, Donald T. Edell, Eric S. Ekbom, Dale C. Fernandes-Taylor, Sara Fink, Daniel S. Franco, Ramon A. Garrett, C. Gaelyn Guardiani, Elizabeth A. Hillel, Alexander T. Hoffman, Henry T. Hogikyan, Norman D. Howell, Rebecca J. Huang, Li-Ching Hussain, Lena K. Johns, Michael M. Kasperbauer, Jan L. Khosla, Sid M. Kinnard, Cheryl Kupfer, Robbi A. Langerman, Alexander J. Lentz, Robert J. Lorenz, Robert R. Lott, David G. Lowery, Anne S. Makani, Samir S. Maldonado, Fabien Mannion, Kyle Matrka, Laura McWhorter, Andrew J. Merati, Albert L. Mori, Matthew C. Netterville, James L. O’Dell, Karla Ongkasuwan, Julina Postma, Gregory N. Reder, Lindsay S. Rohde, Sarah L. Richardson, Brent E. Rickman, Otis B. Rosen, Clark A. Rutter, Michael J. Sandhu, Guri S. Schindler, Joshua S. Schneider, G. Todd Shah, Rupali N. Sikora, Andrew G. Sinard, Robert J. Smith, Marshall E. Smith, Libby J. Soliman, Ahmed M. S. Sveinsdóttir, Sigríður Van Daele, Douglas J. Veivers, David Verma, Sunil P. Weinberger, Paul M. Weissbrod, Philip A. Wootten, Christopher T. Shyr, Yu Francis, David O. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Surgical treatment comparisons in rare diseases are difficult secondary to the geographic distribution of patients. Fortunately, emerging technologies offer promise to reduce these barriers for research. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the outcomes of the 3 most common surgical approaches for idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS), a rare airway disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this international, prospective, 3-year multicenter cohort study, 810 patients with untreated, newly diagnosed, or previously treated iSGS were enrolled after undergoing a surgical procedure (endoscopic dilation [ED], endoscopic resection with adjuvant medical therapy [ERMT], or cricotracheal resection [CTR]). Patients were recruited from clinician practices in the North American Airway Collaborative and an online iSGS community on Facebook. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was days from initial surgical procedure to recurrent surgical procedure. Secondary end points included quality of life using the Clinical COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Questionnaire (CCQ), Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), Eating Assessment Test-10 (EAT-10), the 12-Item Short-Form Version 2 (SF-12v2), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of 810 patients in this cohort, 798 (98.5%) were female and 787 (97.2%) were white, with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range, 43-58 years). Index surgical procedures were ED (n = 603; 74.4%), ERMT (n = 121; 14.9%), and CTR (n = 86; 10.6%). Overall, 185 patients (22.8%) had a recurrent surgical procedure during the 3-year study, but recurrence differed by modality (CTR, 1 patient [1.2%]; ERMT, 15 [12.4%]; and ED, 169 [28.0%]). Weighted, propensity score–matched, Cox proportional hazards regression models showed ED was inferior to ERMT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% CI, 1.8-5.5). Among successfully treated patients without recurrence, those treated with CTR had the best CCQ (0.75 points) and SF-12v2 (54 points) scores and worst VHI-10 score (13 points) 360 days after enrollment as well as the greatest perioperative risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of 810 patients with iSGS, endoscopic dilation, the most popular surgical approach for iSGS, was associated with a higher recurrence rate compared with other procedures. Cricotracheal resection offered the most durable results but showed the greatest perioperative risk and the worst long-term voice outcomes. Endoscopic resection with medical therapy was associated with better disease control compared with ED and had minimal association with vocal function. These results may be used to inform individual patient treatment decision-making. American Medical Association 2019-10-31 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6824232/ /pubmed/31670805 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.3022 Text en Copyright 2019 Gelbard A et al. JAMA Otolaryngology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Gelbard, Alexander Anderson, Catherine Berry, Lynne D. Amin, Milan R. Benninger, Michael S. Blumin, Joel H. Bock, Jonathan M. Bryson, Paul C. Castellanos, Paul F. Chen, Sheau-Chiann Clary, Matthew S. Cohen, Seth M. Crawley, Brianna K. Dailey, Seth H. Daniero, James J. de Alarcon, Alessandro Donovan, Donald T. Edell, Eric S. Ekbom, Dale C. Fernandes-Taylor, Sara Fink, Daniel S. Franco, Ramon A. Garrett, C. Gaelyn Guardiani, Elizabeth A. Hillel, Alexander T. Hoffman, Henry T. Hogikyan, Norman D. Howell, Rebecca J. Huang, Li-Ching Hussain, Lena K. Johns, Michael M. Kasperbauer, Jan L. Khosla, Sid M. Kinnard, Cheryl Kupfer, Robbi A. Langerman, Alexander J. Lentz, Robert J. Lorenz, Robert R. Lott, David G. Lowery, Anne S. Makani, Samir S. Maldonado, Fabien Mannion, Kyle Matrka, Laura McWhorter, Andrew J. Merati, Albert L. Mori, Matthew C. Netterville, James L. O’Dell, Karla Ongkasuwan, Julina Postma, Gregory N. Reder, Lindsay S. Rohde, Sarah L. Richardson, Brent E. Rickman, Otis B. Rosen, Clark A. Rutter, Michael J. Sandhu, Guri S. Schindler, Joshua S. Schneider, G. Todd Shah, Rupali N. Sikora, Andrew G. Sinard, Robert J. Smith, Marshall E. Smith, Libby J. Soliman, Ahmed M. S. Sveinsdóttir, Sigríður Van Daele, Douglas J. Veivers, David Verma, Sunil P. Weinberger, Paul M. Weissbrod, Philip A. Wootten, Christopher T. Shyr, Yu Francis, David O. Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis |
title | Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis |
title_full | Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis |
title_fullStr | Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis |
title_short | Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis |
title_sort | comparative treatment outcomes for patients with idiopathic subglottic stenosis |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6824232/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31670805 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.3022 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gelbardalexander comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT andersoncatherine comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT berrylynned comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT aminmilanr comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT benningermichaels comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT bluminjoelh comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT bockjonathanm comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT brysonpaulc comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT castellanospaulf comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT chensheauchiann comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT clarymatthews comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT cohensethm comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT crawleybriannak comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT daileysethh comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT danierojamesj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT dealarconalessandro comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT donovandonaldt comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT edellerics comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT ekbomdalec comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT fernandestaylorsara comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT finkdaniels comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT francoramona comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT garrettcgaelyn comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT guardianielizabetha comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT hillelalexandert comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT hoffmanhenryt comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT hogikyannormand comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT howellrebeccaj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT huangliching comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT hussainlenak comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT johnsmichaelm comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT kasperbauerjanl comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT khoslasidm comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT kinnardcheryl comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT kupferrobbia comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT langermanalexanderj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT lentzrobertj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT lorenzrobertr comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT lottdavidg comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT loweryannes comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT makanisamirs comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT maldonadofabien comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT mannionkyle comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT matrkalaura comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT mcwhorterandrewj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT meratialbertl comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT morimatthewc comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT nettervillejamesl comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT odellkarla comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT ongkasuwanjulina comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT postmagregoryn comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT rederlindsays comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT rohdesarahl comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT richardsonbrente comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT rickmanotisb comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT rosenclarka comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT ruttermichaelj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT sandhuguris comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT schindlerjoshuas comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT schneidergtodd comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT shahrupalin comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT sikoraandrewg comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT sinardrobertj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT smithmarshalle comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT smithlibbyj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT solimanahmedms comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT sveinsdottirsigriður comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT vandaeledouglasj comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT veiversdavid comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT vermasunilp comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT weinbergerpaulm comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT weissbrodphilipa comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT woottenchristophert comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT shyryu comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis AT francisdavido comparativetreatmentoutcomesforpatientswithidiopathicsubglotticstenosis |