A Comparison of Endoscopic and Surgical Gastrojejunostomy in Patients with Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A National Cohort Analysis (2016-2020).

IF 6.7 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastrointestinal endoscopy Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2025.01.025
Bhanu Siva Mohan Pinnam, Pius Ehiremen Ojemolon, Abdul Mohammed, Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Saurabh Chandan, Harishankar Gopakumar, Hassam Ali, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Rohit Agrawal, Benjamin Mba, Hemant Mutneja, Seema Gandhi, Muhammad K Hasan, Sumant Inamdar
{"title":"A Comparison of Endoscopic and Surgical Gastrojejunostomy in Patients with Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A National Cohort Analysis (2016-2020).","authors":"Bhanu Siva Mohan Pinnam, Pius Ehiremen Ojemolon, Abdul Mohammed, Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Saurabh Chandan, Harishankar Gopakumar, Hassam Ali, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Rohit Agrawal, Benjamin Mba, Hemant Mutneja, Seema Gandhi, Muhammad K Hasan, Sumant Inamdar","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2025.01.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is an unfortunate complication of advanced upper gastrointestinal malignancies. Historically, surgical gastrojejunostomy has been the procedure of choice to achieve enteral bypass. Recently, endoscopic techniques have gained popularity in the management of MGOO. We aimed to compare peri-procedural outcomes between surgical and endoscopic gastrojejunostomy in patients with MGOO.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for 2016 through 2020. The International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify adult admissions with a principal diagnosis of gastric, pancreatic, or duodenal cancer undergoing endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (EGJ) or surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). The two cohorts were compared for peri-procedural adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty thousand nine hundred thirty (20,930) hospitalizations undergoing gastrojejunostomy (16,585 SGJ and 4,345 EGJ) for MGOO were identified. The SGJ cohort had a higher proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer (36.16% vs 19.56%) and a lower proportion of patients with gastric cancer (55.16% vs 71.99%). A higher percentage of endoscopic GJs were performed in the Northeast (20.33% vs 27.66%, P<0.001), while a smaller percentage of endoscopic GJs were performed in the South (30.56% vs. 39.52%, P <0.001). Between the two groups, the difference in mortality rates was not significantly different [0.62, 95% CI 0.35-1.10, P =0.106), but the EGJ group had lower odds of respiratory failure [4.7% vs. 7.4%, aOR (adjusted odds ratio) 0.68, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.48 - 0.96, P =0.032], blood transfusion [9.25% vs. 13.74%, aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 - 0.82, P =0.001], and peritonitis [2.19% vs 4.5%, aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.91, P =0.022]. The EGJ group had lesser hospitalization charges [mean $164,794 vs. $183,519, adjusted difference on regression $16,495, 95% CI $29,204 - $3,786, P =0.011], and shorter hospital stays [mean 9.88 vs. 12.56 days, adjusted difference 2.24 days, 95% CI 1.53 - 2.96 days, P <0.001]. The use of EGJ increased over five years [16.86% in 2016 to 24.14% in 2020, P-value for trend=0.002], while the use of SGJ decreased [83.13% in 2016 to 75.85% in 2020, Trend P=0.002].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to surgical GJ, endoscopic GJ is associated with lower rates of peri-procedural adverse events, hospitalization charges, and length of stay. For these reasons, endoscopic GJ should be strongly considered in managing malignant gastric outlet obstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2025.01.025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is an unfortunate complication of advanced upper gastrointestinal malignancies. Historically, surgical gastrojejunostomy has been the procedure of choice to achieve enteral bypass. Recently, endoscopic techniques have gained popularity in the management of MGOO. We aimed to compare peri-procedural outcomes between surgical and endoscopic gastrojejunostomy in patients with MGOO.

Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for 2016 through 2020. The International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify adult admissions with a principal diagnosis of gastric, pancreatic, or duodenal cancer undergoing endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (EGJ) or surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). The two cohorts were compared for peri-procedural adverse events.

Results: Twenty thousand nine hundred thirty (20,930) hospitalizations undergoing gastrojejunostomy (16,585 SGJ and 4,345 EGJ) for MGOO were identified. The SGJ cohort had a higher proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer (36.16% vs 19.56%) and a lower proportion of patients with gastric cancer (55.16% vs 71.99%). A higher percentage of endoscopic GJs were performed in the Northeast (20.33% vs 27.66%, P<0.001), while a smaller percentage of endoscopic GJs were performed in the South (30.56% vs. 39.52%, P <0.001). Between the two groups, the difference in mortality rates was not significantly different [0.62, 95% CI 0.35-1.10, P =0.106), but the EGJ group had lower odds of respiratory failure [4.7% vs. 7.4%, aOR (adjusted odds ratio) 0.68, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.48 - 0.96, P =0.032], blood transfusion [9.25% vs. 13.74%, aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 - 0.82, P =0.001], and peritonitis [2.19% vs 4.5%, aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.91, P =0.022]. The EGJ group had lesser hospitalization charges [mean $164,794 vs. $183,519, adjusted difference on regression $16,495, 95% CI $29,204 - $3,786, P =0.011], and shorter hospital stays [mean 9.88 vs. 12.56 days, adjusted difference 2.24 days, 95% CI 1.53 - 2.96 days, P <0.001]. The use of EGJ increased over five years [16.86% in 2016 to 24.14% in 2020, P-value for trend=0.002], while the use of SGJ decreased [83.13% in 2016 to 75.85% in 2020, Trend P=0.002].

Conclusions: Compared to surgical GJ, endoscopic GJ is associated with lower rates of peri-procedural adverse events, hospitalization charges, and length of stay. For these reasons, endoscopic GJ should be strongly considered in managing malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Gastrointestinal endoscopy 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
7.80%
发文量
1441
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.
期刊最新文献
A Rare Case of Gastric Mass Due to Adrenal Tuberculosis Presenting Without Typical Clinical Manifestations of Addison's Disease. A Rare Presentation of Esophagopericardial Fistula Arising from Benign Ulcer. An Uncommon Esophageal Mass with Dynamic Changes. An Unusual Case of Pancreatic Cystic Mass. Ergonomic Impact of an Automated Device for Endoscopic Tool Insertion and Transfer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1