A propensity-matched comparison of cost and outcomes after esophageal stent placement or primary surgical repair for iatrogenic esophageal perforation

ObjectivesEsophageal stent placement has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for acute esophageal perforation in selected patients. However, a comparison between surgical repair and stent placement has not been reported. This investigation compares the outcomes and costs of the 2 treatment modalities.MethodsThe Premiere database for a single health system's hospitals was used to identify patients undergoing treatment for an acute intrathoracic esophageal perforation over a 4-year period. Patient cohorts for stent placement or surgical repair were formed using propensity matching. The 2 cohorts were compared for length of stay, morbidity, mortality, and costs.ResultsBetween 2009 and 2012, 60 patients undergoing esophageal stent placement or surgical repair were propensity matched. Mean patient age and Charlson comorbidity scores did not differ significantly (P = .4 and P = .4, respectively). Significant differences in morbidity (4% vs 43%; P = .02), mean length of stay (6 vs 11 days; P = .0007), time to oral intake (3 vs 8 days; P = .0004), and cost ($91,000 vs $142,000; P < .0001) were identified in the esophageal stent cohort when compared with patients receiving surgical repair. Operative mortality did not differ significantly.ConclusionsEsophageal stent placement for the treatment of an acute esophageal perforation seems to be as effective as surgical repair when compared between propensity-matched patients. However, stent placement resulted in a shorter length of stay, lower rates of morbidity, and lower costs when compared with traditional surgical repair.