Next Article in Journal
Vitamin D Deficiency and Outcome of COVID-19 Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Feasibility, Process, and Effects of Short-Term Calorie Reduction in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: An Integrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Association of Serum Levels of Leptin and Ghrelin with the Dietary Fat Content in Non-Obese Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Previous Article in Special Issue
Oral Nutritional Supplementation Affects the Dietary Intake and Body Weight of Head and Neck Cancer Patients during (Chemo) Radiotherapy
Open AccessArticle

Comparison between Percutaneous Gastrostomy and Self-Expandable Metal Stent Insertion for the Treatment of Malignant Esophageal Obstruction, after Propensity Score Matching

1
Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea
2
Statistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul 06351, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2020, 12(9), 2756; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12092756
Received: 9 August 2020 / Revised: 3 September 2020 / Accepted: 7 September 2020 / Published: 10 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Nutrition for Cancer Patients)
Background: The outcomes of the two procedures; self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion and percutaneous gastrostomy (PG) feeding procedures, used in patients with malignant esophageal obstruction, are still controversial. We aimed to compare the outcomes between the two procedures, following propensity score (PS) matching. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 568 esophageal cancer patients who underwent SEMS insertion (stent group) or PG (gastrostomy group) at the Samsung Medical Center between January 1996 and December 2018. Procedures for reasons other than malignant obstruction were excluded. We analyzed the datasets after PS matching. Primary outcomes were the post-procedural nutritional status, and need for additional intervention (AI). The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: In a matched cohort, the gastrostomy group showed less decrease in albumin level after the procedure (−0.15 ± 0.57 vs. stent group; 0.41 ± 0.59, p = 0.021). The gastrostomy group required less need for, and number of, AIs (2.1% vs. stent group; 23.4%, p < 0.001 and 0.04 ± 0.25 vs. stent group; 0.31 ± 0.61, p < 0.001). After matching, there was no significant difference between the two groups in OS. However, PG was associated with OS based on multivariable analysis of the matched cohort (vs. stent group, hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.5–0.95). Conclusions: PG tends to provide better post-procedure nutritional status than SEMS insertion in patients with malignant esophageal obstruction. View Full-Text
Keywords: esophageal neoplasm; self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS); gastrostomy; enteral nutrition; survival esophageal neoplasm; self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS); gastrostomy; enteral nutrition; survival
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Song, J.H.; Ko, J.; Min, Y.W.; Kim, K.; Lee, H.; Min, B.-H.; Lee, J.H.; Rhee, P.-L.; Kim, J.J. Comparison between Percutaneous Gastrostomy and Self-Expandable Metal Stent Insertion for the Treatment of Malignant Esophageal Obstruction, after Propensity Score Matching. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2756.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop