ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2024
Efficacy of airway stenting and nasogastric tube insertion in airway-esophageal fistula patients with airways compromised by advanced malignancy.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of airway stenting and nasogastric tube insertion in airway-esophageal fistula patients with airways compromised by advanced malignancy.The clinical respiratory journal · 2024Article
- Long-Segment Malignant Tracheal Stenosis from Recurrent Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Successfully Palliated with a Covered Self-Expanding Metallic Stent: A Case Report.Case reports in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhether airway-compromised airway-esophageal fistula (AEF) patients should undergo combined airway and esophageal stenting is controversial. This study was designed to evaluate the survival prognosis and poststent interventions in AEF patients with airways compromised by advanced malignancy with or without airway stents.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the medical records, survival times, and poststent interventions of 17 patients with or without airway stents was performed.
resultsThe causes of AEF were esophageal cancer (11/17, 64.7%), lung cancer (6/17, 29.4%), and thyroid cancer (1/17, 5.9%). All patients received a nasogastric tube (n = 12) or underwent gastrostomy (n = 5) to resume enteral nutrition. Thirteen patients underwent airway stent insertion (13/17, 76.5%), whereas four patients did not. Four patients with a high risk of stent migration received external stent fixation to the trachea. Three of the patients with stents suffered severe granulation tissue formation and needed repeated bronchoscopy interventions. In the stented group, none of the patients developed stent migration, and the overall median survival time was 9 months, compared with 1.25 months in the nonstented group (P = 0.04). Cox proportional hazards regression revealed that stent insertion, nasogastric tube insertion, and transcatheter bronchial artery chemoembolization were protective factors against death, whereas surgery-related fistula, fistula larger than 2 cm, continued chemotherapy, and age were risk factors for poor survival (P < 0.05).
conclusionIn airway-compromised AEF patients, airway stents and nasogastric tubes are probably the preferred treatments. Airway stenting is tolerable, and routine weekly poststent bronchoscopy is needed in the first month and depending on respiratory symptoms thereafter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.