Increased risk of complications associated with proximal esophageal stent placement

R. M. Bashir, D. E. Fleischer, D. Pinto, S. W. Fry, G. M. Eisen, Firas Al Kawas, S. B. Benjamin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Data comparing conventional (CP) and expandable (EP) esophageal stent-related complications are limited. Our aim was to determine whether complications were associated with the specific location of esophageal stent placement. Methods: All patients who underwent esophageal stent placement for malignant esophageal obstruction between 11/87 and 11/95 were reviewed. Data collection included patient demographics, procedural indication, specific location of stenosis, stent type, and stent-related complications. Stents were categorized as proximal (within 8 cm of the UES), distal (within 8 cm of the GE junction), or mid (all remaining) based on the location of stenosis and stent deployment by the endoscopist. All complications were prospectively recorded and evaluated at monthly QA meetings. Results: 96 patients (68 M, 28F, mean= 67.2y) underwent 118 esophageal stent placements (95 CPP (Wilson-Cook 74,Bard 14,Key-Med 7); 23 EMP (Ztm 14,Wallstenttm6,Ultraflextm 2,Esophacoiltm 1)) for malignant esophageal obstruction (99 Esoph CA, 4 Lung CA). Of 118 stents, 26 (22%) were placed proximally (PE), 55 (47%) in the mid-esophagus (ME), and 37 (31%) distally (DE). Overall complications are summarized in table. Proximal Esoph Mid-Esoph : Distal Esoph (n=26) (n=55) (n=37) All Complications 19 (73%)123 25 (45%) 15 (41%) CP (n=94) 12/18 (67%) 16/44 (36%) 13/34 (38%) EP (n=23) 7/8 (88%) 9/11(82%) 2/3 (67%) 1 Prox-Esoph vs. Mid Esoph., p

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)291
Number of pages1
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume43
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Stents
Pathologic Constriction
Naproxen
Esophagus
Demography
Lung

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Bashir, R. M., Fleischer, D. E., Pinto, D., Fry, S. W., Eisen, G. M., Al Kawas, F., & Benjamin, S. B. (1996). Increased risk of complications associated with proximal esophageal stent placement. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 43(4), 291.

Increased risk of complications associated with proximal esophageal stent placement. / Bashir, R. M.; Fleischer, D. E.; Pinto, D.; Fry, S. W.; Eisen, G. M.; Al Kawas, Firas; Benjamin, S. B.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1996, p. 291.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bashir, RM, Fleischer, DE, Pinto, D, Fry, SW, Eisen, GM, Al Kawas, F & Benjamin, SB 1996, 'Increased risk of complications associated with proximal esophageal stent placement', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 291.
Bashir, R. M. ; Fleischer, D. E. ; Pinto, D. ; Fry, S. W. ; Eisen, G. M. ; Al Kawas, Firas ; Benjamin, S. B. / Increased risk of complications associated with proximal esophageal stent placement. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1996 ; Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 291.
@article{10387e5da2db4d089dc35e387a531088,
title = "Increased risk of complications associated with proximal esophageal stent placement",
abstract = "Data comparing conventional (CP) and expandable (EP) esophageal stent-related complications are limited. Our aim was to determine whether complications were associated with the specific location of esophageal stent placement. Methods: All patients who underwent esophageal stent placement for malignant esophageal obstruction between 11/87 and 11/95 were reviewed. Data collection included patient demographics, procedural indication, specific location of stenosis, stent type, and stent-related complications. Stents were categorized as proximal (within 8 cm of the UES), distal (within 8 cm of the GE junction), or mid (all remaining) based on the location of stenosis and stent deployment by the endoscopist. All complications were prospectively recorded and evaluated at monthly QA meetings. Results: 96 patients (68 M, 28F, mean= 67.2y) underwent 118 esophageal stent placements (95 CPP (Wilson-Cook 74,Bard 14,Key-Med 7); 23 EMP (Ztm 14,Wallstenttm6,Ultraflextm 2,Esophacoiltm 1)) for malignant esophageal obstruction (99 Esoph CA, 4 Lung CA). Of 118 stents, 26 (22{\%}) were placed proximally (PE), 55 (47{\%}) in the mid-esophagus (ME), and 37 (31{\%}) distally (DE). Overall complications are summarized in table. Proximal Esoph Mid-Esoph : Distal Esoph (n=26) (n=55) (n=37) All Complications 19 (73{\%})123 25 (45{\%}) 15 (41{\%}) CP (n=94) 12/18 (67{\%}) 16/44 (36{\%}) 13/34 (38{\%}) EP (n=23) 7/8 (88{\%}) 9/11(82{\%}) 2/3 (67{\%}) 1 Prox-Esoph vs. Mid Esoph., p",
author = "Bashir, {R. M.} and Fleischer, {D. E.} and D. Pinto and Fry, {S. W.} and Eisen, {G. M.} and {Al Kawas}, Firas and Benjamin, {S. B.}",
year = "1996",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "291",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Increased risk of complications associated with proximal esophageal stent placement

AU - Bashir, R. M.

AU - Fleischer, D. E.

AU - Pinto, D.

AU - Fry, S. W.

AU - Eisen, G. M.

AU - Al Kawas, Firas

AU - Benjamin, S. B.

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - Data comparing conventional (CP) and expandable (EP) esophageal stent-related complications are limited. Our aim was to determine whether complications were associated with the specific location of esophageal stent placement. Methods: All patients who underwent esophageal stent placement for malignant esophageal obstruction between 11/87 and 11/95 were reviewed. Data collection included patient demographics, procedural indication, specific location of stenosis, stent type, and stent-related complications. Stents were categorized as proximal (within 8 cm of the UES), distal (within 8 cm of the GE junction), or mid (all remaining) based on the location of stenosis and stent deployment by the endoscopist. All complications were prospectively recorded and evaluated at monthly QA meetings. Results: 96 patients (68 M, 28F, mean= 67.2y) underwent 118 esophageal stent placements (95 CPP (Wilson-Cook 74,Bard 14,Key-Med 7); 23 EMP (Ztm 14,Wallstenttm6,Ultraflextm 2,Esophacoiltm 1)) for malignant esophageal obstruction (99 Esoph CA, 4 Lung CA). Of 118 stents, 26 (22%) were placed proximally (PE), 55 (47%) in the mid-esophagus (ME), and 37 (31%) distally (DE). Overall complications are summarized in table. Proximal Esoph Mid-Esoph : Distal Esoph (n=26) (n=55) (n=37) All Complications 19 (73%)123 25 (45%) 15 (41%) CP (n=94) 12/18 (67%) 16/44 (36%) 13/34 (38%) EP (n=23) 7/8 (88%) 9/11(82%) 2/3 (67%) 1 Prox-Esoph vs. Mid Esoph., p

AB - Data comparing conventional (CP) and expandable (EP) esophageal stent-related complications are limited. Our aim was to determine whether complications were associated with the specific location of esophageal stent placement. Methods: All patients who underwent esophageal stent placement for malignant esophageal obstruction between 11/87 and 11/95 were reviewed. Data collection included patient demographics, procedural indication, specific location of stenosis, stent type, and stent-related complications. Stents were categorized as proximal (within 8 cm of the UES), distal (within 8 cm of the GE junction), or mid (all remaining) based on the location of stenosis and stent deployment by the endoscopist. All complications were prospectively recorded and evaluated at monthly QA meetings. Results: 96 patients (68 M, 28F, mean= 67.2y) underwent 118 esophageal stent placements (95 CPP (Wilson-Cook 74,Bard 14,Key-Med 7); 23 EMP (Ztm 14,Wallstenttm6,Ultraflextm 2,Esophacoiltm 1)) for malignant esophageal obstruction (99 Esoph CA, 4 Lung CA). Of 118 stents, 26 (22%) were placed proximally (PE), 55 (47%) in the mid-esophagus (ME), and 37 (31%) distally (DE). Overall complications are summarized in table. Proximal Esoph Mid-Esoph : Distal Esoph (n=26) (n=55) (n=37) All Complications 19 (73%)123 25 (45%) 15 (41%) CP (n=94) 12/18 (67%) 16/44 (36%) 13/34 (38%) EP (n=23) 7/8 (88%) 9/11(82%) 2/3 (67%) 1 Prox-Esoph vs. Mid Esoph., p

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=10544239301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=10544239301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 291

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -