Management of esophageal anastomotic leaks, a systematic review and network meta-analysis

There is currently no consensus as to how to manage esophageal anastomotic leaks. Intervention with endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC), stenting, reoperation, and conservative management have all been mooted as potential options. To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the optimal management strategy for esophageal anastomotic leaks. A systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with extension for NMA. NMA was performed using R packages and Shiny. In total, 12 retrospective studies were included, which included 511 patients. Of the 449 patients for whom data regarding sex was available, 371 (82.6%) were male, 78 (17.4%) were female. The average age of patients was 62.6 years (standard deviation 10.2). The stenting cohort included 245 (47.9%) patients. The EVAC cohort included 123 (24.1%) patients. The conservative cohort included 87 (17.0%) patients. The reoperation cohort included 56 (10.9%) patients. EVAC had a significantly decreased complication rate compared to stenting (odds ratio 0.23 95%, confidence interval [CI] 0.09;0.58). EVAC had a significantly lower mortality rate than stenting (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.21; 0.87). Reoperation was used in significantly larger leaks than stenting (mean difference 14.66, 95% CI 4.61;24.70). The growing use of EVAC as a first-line intervention in esophageal anastomotic leaks should continue given its proven effectiveness and significant reduction in both complication and mortality rates. Surgical management is often necessary for significantly larger leaks and will likely remain an effective option in uncontained leaks with systemic features.