Retrospective study analyzes treatment effects and survival factors in non-malignant esophageal fistula patients.
This study examines the effects of different treatments on the prognosis of non-malignant esophageal fistula, a rare but serious condition, and identifies factors affecting post-fistula survival and healing. This study retrospectively analyzed clinical data of patients with non-malignant esophageal fistula, categorizing them into conservative, endoscopic, and surgical groups. It compared Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) gap, hospital stay length, ICU admission, 30-day readmission, in-hospital and 90-day mortality rates, and hospitalization costs among these groups, while also assessing factors influencing post-fistula survival and healing. 100 patients were included. Those who had surgery experienced longer hospital stays (P < 0.001), higher ICU occupancy rates (P = 0.006), and increased costs (P = 0.001) compared to others. Patients treated conservatively had a higher 30-day readmission rate (P = 0.018). Post-fistula survival and healing were unaffected by the primary treatment approach. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that smaller fistulas (P = 0.048), nasojejunal tube (P = 0.045), and thoracic drainage tube (P = 0.035) were favorable factors for fistula healing, while a lower BMI (P = 0.026) negatively impacted post-fistula survival. Endoscopic treatment showed better short-term outcomes than the other groups, though it didn’t significantly improve post-fistula survival and healing. Several factors significantly impact the prognosis of esophageal fistula patients, requiring careful consideration in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: