Treatment strategies for Boerhaave syndrome: multinational retrospective cohort study

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Boerhaave syndrome is defined as a spontaneous perforation of the oesophagus. The mainstay of treatment is resuscitation of the patient, closure of the oesophageal defect, and drainage of perioesophageal and pleural fluid collections. Whether the optimal approach is endoscopic, surgical, or conservative management remains unknown and there are no clear guidelines. The aim of this multicentre retrospective cohort study was to evaluate current treatment strategies and outcomes for Boerhaave syndrome. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective analysis of data from 23 participating European tertiary centres was performed. Patients with Boerhaave syndrome treated between January 2019 and December 2023 were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the length of ICU stay and secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, 90-day mortality, and the length of overall hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 216 patients were included; 151 were men (70%), the median age was 62 (22-95) years, and 81 (40%) were treated >24 h after the start of symptoms. Seventy (32%) patients were managed endoscopically (group I), 73 (34%) were managed surgically (group II), 67 (31%) were managed using a combination of endoscopy and surgery (group III), and 6 (3%) were managed using other methods (group IV). For patients in groups I-III: the median length of ICU stay was 8 (0-67) days, with no differences between the three groups (P = 0.105); the in-hospital mortality rate and 90-day mortality rate were both 12% (P = 0.490 and P = 0.637, respectively); and the median length of overall hospital stay was 27 (range 1-193) days, with the longest stays observed in patients who received combined treatment (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the current treatment strategies and outcomes for patients with Boerhaave syndrome in Europe.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.