Spotlight on esophageal perforation: A multinational study using the Pittsburgh esophageal perforation severity scoring system.

OBJECTIVE: The Pittsburgh group has suggested a perforation severity score (PSS) for better decision making in the management of esophageal perforation. Our study aim was to determine whether the PSS can be used to stratify patients with esophageal perforation into distinct subgroups with differential outcomes in an independent study population.

METHODS: In a retrospective study cases of esophageal perforation were collected (study-period, 1990-2014). The PSS was analyzed using logistic regression as a continuous variable and stratified into low, intermediate, and high score groups.

RESULTS: Data for 288 patients (mean age, 59.9 years) presenting with esophageal perforation (during the period 1990-2014) were abstracted. Etiology was spontaneous (Boerhaave; n = 119), iatrogenic (instrumentation; n = 85), and traumatic perforation (n = 84). Forty-three patients had coexisting esophageal cancer. The mean PSS was 5.82, and was significantly higher in patients with fatal outcome (n = 57; 19.8%; mean PSS, 9.79 vs 4.84; P < .001). Mean PSS was also significantly higher in patients receiving operative management (n = 200; 69%; mean PSS, 6.44 vs 4.40; P < .001). Using the Pittsburgh strata, patients were assigned to low PSS (≤2; n = 63), intermediate PSS (3-5; n = 86), and high PSS (>5; n = 120) groups. Perforation-related morbidity, length of stay, frequency of operative treatment, and mortality increased with increasing PSS strata. Patients with high PSS were 3.37 times more likely to have operative management compared with low PSS.

CONCLUSIONS: The Pittsburgh PSS reliably reflects the seriousness of esophageal perforation and stratifies patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with differential morbidity and mortality outcomes.