|
|
||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:342-347
© 2003 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Thoracic Surgical Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
b Thoracic Surgical Unit, BarnesJewish Hospital, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Accepted for publication August 21, 2002.
* Address reprint requests to Dr Gaissert, Thoracic Surgical Unit, Blake 1570, Massachusetts General Hospital, Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA
e-mail: hgaissert{at}partners.org
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
METHODS: We report our experience over a 7-year period and review published reports since 1976. We treated 4 patients and found 21 reported patients with perforation (11/25), fistula (8/25), and necrosis (6/25) at a mean age of 35 years. Twenty-one patients were immunodeficient (84%) due to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in 8, acute leukemia in 6, renal transplant in 3, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and corticosteroids in 1 each. Pathogenic organisms were fungal in 15 cases, viral in 7, and bacterial in 7.
RESULTS: Treatment consisted of antibiotic therapy in 13 patients and surgical intervention combined with antibiotic therapy in 12: esophagectomy in 6, esophageal stenting and drainage in 2, drainage alone in 2, and salivary diversion in 2. Overall mortality was 48% (12/25). Mortality without surgical intervention was 90% (9/10) and with surgical intervention 27% (3/11). One of 6 patients undergoing esophagectomy (17%) died. The difference in mortality was due to sepsis, which was the cause of death in 8 patients treated with medical intervention and only 1 treated with surgical intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Local complications of necrotizing esophagitis have a high mortality due to sepsis. Surgical intervention, in particular esophagectomy, controls sepsis in published case reports and should be considered in selected patients. Further study is required to determine the true prevalence of these complications and the outcome of intervention.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Systemic illness in immunocompromised patients is rarely attributed to the esophagus unless complications have occurred. One autopsy study of bone marrow recipients demonstrated ulceration covering one third or more of esophageal length in 42% of necropsies [5]. Extensive destruction of the esophageal wall was present in 7 of 8 early deaths (87.5%) in this study. This association suggests a contributory or causative role of esophageal infection in death after bone marrow transplant, even in the absence of perforation. Esophageal abnormalities in these patients are not always pursued aggressively with endoscopic inspection and biopsy. Indeed, endoscopy was not performed in the above-mentioned study in "critically ill patients already receiving systemic antifungal and antiviral therapy and those with transient symptoms.'' Experience in endoscopy is needed to distinguish superficial ulcers from full-thickness necrosis. Total esophageal necrosis has been mistaken for simple ulceration, both on endoscopic and radiographic examination [6]. Tissue biopsy or culture may fail to show a typical infectious lesion. Hence, the physician investigating a deteriorating patient often lacks precise information. When the full extent of esophageal destruction is known, the therapy of life-threatening infection usually does not escalate beyond the use of antibiotics unless perforation is proven. And even if complications occur, the surgeon asked to consider resection or drainage receives little if any guidance from individual case reports.
This study reviews 4 patients with intrinsic esophageal infection, complicated by perforation, who were treated at three hospitals over a 7-year period. Surgical intervention was considered in all 4 and undertaken in 3, with survival in 2. These patients are placed in the context of case reports dating from 1976 to the present to describe the complications of invasive mucosal infection and their management. In the course of this review, we encountered reports of mycobacterial infections arising in immunodeficient patients outside the esophagus with delayed rupture into the lumen. Cases were excluded from review when mediastinal adenopathy was identified as the origin of perforation despite similarities in presentation and management. In the absence of a clearly stated extraluminal cause, we chose to include reports. The purpose of the study is to collect the reported experience, to compare conservative and surgical therapy, and to report the outcome of these infections.
| Patients and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Case 3
Eight days after cadaveric renal transplant for hypertensive glomerulopathy in January 2000, a 31-year-old man presented with abdominal pain and hypotension. At laparotomy, a necrotic cecum required right colectomy, ileostomy, and mucus fistula. Peritoneal, blood, and urine cultures remained without growth. Pathologic examination was consistent with ischemic necrosis, and fungal stains were negative. The cause was attributed to cyclosporine [7], and immunosuppression was continued with FK 506. Sixteen days following colectomy, reexploration for abdominal pain disclosed mid-jejunal ischemia and a small bowel resection was performed. Three days later, 27 days after transplant, a right hydropneumothorax was discovered. A chest tube drained gastric contents. Abdominal reexploration demonstrated a necrotic esophagogastric junction. The cardia was oversewn and the mid-esophagus stapled in the right chest above an inflamed and perforated lower esophageal wall. Following thoracic consultation, an esophagectomy was performed with cervical esophagostomy. Histologic examination of the esophagus showed transmural necrosis and viral cytopathic changes.
Immunohistochemistry with polyclonal antibodies to Herpes simplex virus type I and II was positive. Culture of the esophageal wall grew Candida krusei, and pleural fluid grew Candida krusei, Staphylococcus aureus, and enterococcus. Viral cultures of tissue and pleural fluid remained negative. The patient was treated with intravenous amphotericin and acyclovir. Seven months later, the patient underwent a substernal gastric pull-up and cervical esophagogastrostomy. Three months later, he required readmission for abdominal pain and underwent left colectomy for an ischemic stricture. Thereafter, he slowly began to tolerate an oral diet. Nineteen months after transplant, total parenteral nutrition was reinstituted for gradual weight loss.
Case 4
A 25-year-old woman presented to an outside hospital with back pain in April 2001 and was found to have acute lymphocytic leukemia. Induction chemotherapy included cyclophosphamide, daunorubicin, vincristin, L-asparaginase, and prednisone. Neutropenic fever and hypotension on day 13 after induction progressed to septic shock and respiratory failure. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from an intravenous catheter and she was treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Four weeks after induction and while on antibiotics, sputum cultures grew Aspergillus flavus. Multiple lung abscesses and ring-enhancing brain lesions were discovered and amphotericin was started. Days later, an acute abdomen necessitated a laparotomy. Several sharply demarcated regions of full-thickness necrosis were identified at the esophagogastric junction, along the greater gastric curvature, in the antrum, and the ileum. The esophagus was stapled and divided, gastric ulcers were excised, and an ileocecal resection and ileostomy were performed. Before exploration, the patient was difficult to ventilate and gastric distension was noted. An intraoperative endoscopy demonstrated a tracheoesophageal fistula 1 cm above the carina within esophageal necrosis. The patient was transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital. An endoscopy of trachea and esophagus showed a small additional tracheoesophageal fistula 1.5 cm below the cricoid ring and a total of five separate punched-out esophageal ulcers. Aspergillus flavus was found in all histologic specimens obtained during laparotomy. Surgical closure of the fistula was inadvisable due to hemodynamic instability and advanced respiratory failure. Despite supportive therapy, the patient expired 43 days after institution of chemotherapy.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. Every patient who underwent a surgical procedure also received specific antibiotic therapy. In the combined group, there were 11 free perforations into mediastinum or pleural space, 6 long-segment necroses, 4 tracheoesophageal fistulae, and 4 bronchoesophageal fistulae. Candida or Torulopsis were present in 11 (in 2 as a second organism), Herpes simplex virus in 6, M. tuberculosis in 3, and a variety of bacteria in 4. The report of Walsh and associates [9] argues convincingly for the presence of invasive bacterial esophagitis, and 3 of their patients proven to have transmural necrosis on autopsy were included in our review. Cytomegalovirus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (brewers yeast), M. avium, Nocardia, Penicillium chrysogenum, and Aspergillus flavus were found in 1 patient each. While the perforation in case 3 could have conceivably been associated with cyclosporine [7] or with candidiasis, examination of the esophageal wall demonstrated cytopathic changes specific to herpes simplex and no hyphae.
|
| Comment |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Necrotizing esophagitis is easily dismissed as hopeless because it affects severely ill patients in whom one additional critical illness may convince the physician that any operation is futile. Reviews of infectious esophagitis support this view by emphasizing antibiotic therapy and omitting complications from their discussion [24]. Of course, the natural history of necrotizing esophagitis cannot be reconstructed solely from individual case reports. Its complications are probably underreported, as perhaps are the failures of surgical treatment. While we admit the guarded long-term prognosis in these patients, we note that they are typically young and immunodeficient. The former indicates that they should tolerate an operation and the latter that evaluation and treatment be conducted without delay. Operative intervention succeeded in 9 of 12 selected patients, and 8 patients are confirmed to have left the hospital alive. Five of 6 patients reported by us (cases 1 to 4) or one of us and associates [6] underwent esophagectomy, and 4 survived. Surgical intervention is therefore neither hopeless nor futile.
Perforation of the esophagus due to invasive infection should be distinguished from an injury unrelated to mucosal disease. Boerhaaves syndrome refers to perforation caused by barotrauma and should not be ascribed to a disintegrating esophagus in the presence of an immunologic disorder and systemic infection [21]. Bauer and associates [25] reported 2 cases of spontaneous esophageal perforation with subsequent candida infection different from primary esophagitis. Both patients vomited before presentation, neither had endoscopic demonstration of mucosal disease beyond the tear, and both developed invasive candidiasis outside the esophagus: one after nonoperative treatment and the other who presented with delayed presentation following operative closure. Finally, the pathology in 5 patients with acute leukemia contained in this review is distinct from leukemia infiltrates [26]. Tissue from resection or autopsy was available in all 5, and there was no evidence of leukemia.
Mycobacterial perforation of the esophagus results commonly from erosion of necrotic lymph nodes into the esophageal lumen and rarely from a mucosal ulcer [11, 2729]. De Silva and colleagues [11] reported esophageal perforations in 5 patients with typical and 1 with atypical mycobacterial infections; mediastinal adenopathy was present in 4 and led to their exclusion from this review. Two of the 3 remaining patients with mycobacterial disease in this review had peculiar esophago-esophageal fistula without mediastinal nodal enlargement. Since there is no confirmed spontaneous closure of a tuberculosis-related transmural injury in an immunodeficient patient, the primary treatment of mycobacterial perforation due to intrinsic or extraluminal disease is repair or resection [28, 30]. The only reported instance of long-term survival occurred after esophagectomy [27].
In published reports, esophagectomy and surgical drainage succeed in controlling sepsis. These procedures are not interchangeable options. Perforation unrelated to infection is preferably treated by reinforced repair [31], whereas resection is reserved for irreparable destruction of the esophagus [32]. We did not find any report of successful esophageal repair in invasive infection, and our single attempt failed. Disease severity, not surgical aggressiveness, dictates the need for esophagectomy. A lesser procedure could be selected when the chance of success is reasonable. Two patients undergoing tube thoracostomy and stent placement did so because they were not deemed stable for thoracotomy. Both patients eventually recovered after a long hospital course. Two other patients treated with delayed drainage did not survive [18]. This approach does not remove the focus of sepsis or allow debridement of pleura and mediastinum. We therefore do not recommend leaving the esophagus in situ when resection can be accomplished.
The outcome in these patients encourages us to question whether patients with transmural esophagitis, but without perforation, should undergo esophageal resection to contain systemic sepsis. St. Onge and Bezahler [33] reported a giant ulcer due to cytomegalovirus associated with AIDS. An operation was refused due to poor patient condition. McDonald and colleagues [5] found a strong relationship between esophageal and systemic disease: in 18 of 25 patients with esophageal ulcers at autopsy, an identical organism was cultured from blood and esophageal tissue. All 8 patients with CMV esophagitis had systemic CMV infection. Most patients respond to specific therapy for viral or fungal mucosal disease, yet the distinction between giant ulcer and full-thickness necrosis is difficult to make, if not impossible. Resection or debridement should be considered in a deteriorating patient with large esophageal ulcers on maximal antibiotic or antiviral therapy.
In conclusion, the available evidence supports an aggressive attitude in the evaluation of necrotizing esophageal infection, as the mortality of local complications is high. A patient without disseminated disease or end-organ failure has a good chance to survive esophagectomy and thus recover from sepsis. Local drainage procedures and esophageal stenting or salivary diversion alone should be considered only when esophageal resection cannot be tolerated. Although we support esophagectomy for local complications including nonperforated necrosis, the strength of our recommendation is tempered by a lack of prevalent data and prospective studies.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. L. Van Natta, K. R. Parekh, C. G. Reed, S. A. Shebrain, and B. O. Omari Benign Esophagobronchial Fistula With and Without Esophageal Obstruction: Two Ends of the Surgical Spectrum Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2008; 85(1): 322 - 325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |