Hospice & Palliative Medicine

A 72-year-old woman presents to the emergency department with progressive nausea and vomiting. One week earlier, she developed early satiety and nausea with vomiting after eating solid food. Three days later her symptoms progressed, and she became unable to take anything by mouth. The patient also experienced a 40-lb weight loss in the previous 3 months. She denies symptoms of abdominal pain, hematemesis, or melena. Her medical history includes cholecystectomy and type 2 diabetes mellitus, diagnosed 1 year ago. She has no family history of gastrointestinal malignancy. She says she smoked 1 pack a day in her 20s. She does not consume alcohol.

On physical examination, she is normotensive with a heart rate of 105 beats per minute. The oral mucosa is dry, and the abdomen is mildly distended and tender to palpation in the epigastrium. Laboratory evaluation reveals hypokalemia and metabolic alkalosis.

Computed tomography (CT) reveals a mass 3 cm by 4 cm in the pancreatic head. The mass has invaded the medial wall of the duodenum, with obstruction of the pancreatic and common bile ducts and extension into and occlusion of the superior mesenteric vein, with soft-tissue expansion around the superior mesenteric artery. CT also reveals retained stomach contents and an air-fluid level consistent with gastric outlet obstruction.

INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC BLOCKAGE

Gastric outlet obstruction, also called pyloric obstruction, is caused by intrinsic or extrinsic mechanical blockage of gastric emptying, generally in the distal stomach, pyloric channel, or duodenum, with associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and early satiety. It is encountered in both the clinic and the hospital.

Here, we review the causes, diagnosis, and management of this disorder.

BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CAUSES

In a retrospective study of 76 patients hospitalized with gastric outlet obstruction between 2006 and 2015 at our institution,² 29 cases (38%) were due to malignancy and 47 (62%) were due to benign causes. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma accounted for 13 cases (17%), while gastric adenocarcinoma accounted for 5 cases (7%); less common malignant causes were cholangiocarcinoma, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, duodenal adenocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metastatic disease. Of the benign causes, the most common were peptic ulcer disease (13 cases, 17%) and postoperative strictures or adhesions (11 cases, 14%).

These numbers reflect general trends around the world.

Less gastric cancer, more pancreatic cancer

The last several decades have seen a trend toward more cases due to cancer and fewer due to benign causes.^3–14

In earlier studies in both developed and developing countries, gastric adenocarcinoma was the most common malignant cause of gastric outlet obstruction. Since then, it has become less common in Western countries, although it remains more common in Asia and Africa.^7–14 This trend likely reflects environmental factors, including decreased prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection, a major risk factor for gastric cancer, in Western countries.^15–17

At the same time, pancreatic cancer is on the rise,¹⁶ and up to 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer develop gastric outlet obstruction.¹⁸ In a prospective observational study of 108 patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction undergoing endoscopic stenting, pancreatic cancer was by far the most common malignancy, occurring in 54% of patients, followed by gastric cancer in 13%.¹⁹

Less peptic ulcer disease, but still common

Peptic ulcer disease used to account for up to 90% of cases of gastric outlet obstruction, and it is still the most common benign cause.

In 1990, gastric outlet obstruction was estimated to occur in 5% to 10% of all hospital admissions for ulcer-related complications, accounting for 2,000 operations annually.^20,21 Gastric outlet obstruction now occurs in fewer than 5% of patients with duodenal ulcer disease and fewer than 2% of patients with gastric ulcer disease.²²

Peptic ulcer disease remains an important cause of obstruction in countries with poor access to acid-suppressing drugs.²³

Gastric outlet obstruction occurs in both acute and chronic peptic ulcer disease. In acute peptic ulcer disease, tissue inflammation and edema result in mechanical obstruction. Chronic peptic ulcer disease results in tissue scarring and fibrosis with strictures.²⁰

Environmental factors, including improved diet, hygiene, physical activity, and the decreased prevalence of H pylori infection, also contribute to the decreased prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and its complications, including gastric outlet obstruction.³ The continued occurrence of peptic ulcer disease is associated with widespread use of low-dose aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the most common causes of peptic ulcer disease in Western countries.^24,25

Other nonmalignant causes of gastric outlet obstruction are diverse and less common. They include caustic ingestion, postsurgical strictures, benign tumors of the gastrointestinal tract, Crohn disease, and pancreatic disorders including acute pancreatitis, pancreatic pseudocyst, chronic pancreatitis, and annular pancreas. Intramural duodenal hematoma may cause obstruction after blunt abdominal trauma, endoscopic biopsy, or gastrostomy tube migration, especially in the setting of a bleeding disorder or anticoagulation.²⁶

Tuberculosis should be suspected in countries in which it is common.⁷ In a prospective study of 64 patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction in India,²⁷ 16 (25%) had corrosive injury, 16 (25%) had tuberculosis, and 15 (23%) had peptic ulcer disease. Compared with patients with corrosive injury and peptic ulcer disease, patients with gastroduodenal tuberculosis had the best outcomes with appropriate treatment.

Other reported causes include Bouveret syndrome (an impacted gallstone in the proximal duodenum), phytobezoar, diaphragmatic hernia, gastric volvulus, and Ladd bands (peritoneal bands associated with intestinal malrotation).^7,28,29

 

 

PRESENTING SYMPTOMS

Symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction include nausea, nonbilious vomiting, epigastric pain, early satiety, abdominal distention, and weight loss.

In our patients, the most common presenting symptoms were nausea and vomiting (80%), followed by abdominal pain (72%); weight loss (15%), abdominal distention (15%), and early satiety (9%) were less common.²

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction secondary to malignancy generally present with a shorter duration of symptoms than those with peptic ulcer disease and are more likely to be older.^8,13 Other conditions with an acute onset of symptoms include gastric polyp prolapse, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube migration, gastric volvulus, and gallstone impaction.

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction associated with peptic ulcer disease generally have a long-standing history of symptoms, including dyspepsia and weight loss over several years.⁴

SIGNS ON EXAMINATION

On examination, look for signs of chronic gastric obstruction and its consequences, such as malnutrition, cachexia, volume depletion, and dental erosions.

A succussion splash may suggest gastric outlet obstruction. This is elicited by rocking the patient back and forth by the hips or abdomen while listening over the stomach for a splash, which may be heard without a stethoscope. The test is considered positive if present 3 or more hours after drinking fluids and suggests retention of gastric materials.^30,31

In thin individuals, chronic gastric outlet obstruction makes the stomach dilate and hypertrophy, which may be evident by a palpably thickened stomach with visible gastric peristalsis.⁴

Other notable findings on physical examination may include a palpable abdominal mass, epigastric pain, or an abnormality suggestive of metastatic gastric cancer, such as an enlarged left supraclavicular lymph node (Virchow node) or periumbilical lymph node (Sister Mary Joseph nodule). The Virchow node is at the junction of the thoracic duct and the left subclavian vein where the lymphatic circulation from the body drains into the systemic circulation, and it may be the first sign of gastric cancer.³² Sister Mary Joseph nodule (named after a surgical assistant to Dr. William James Mayo) refers to a palpable mass at the umbilicus, generally resulting from metastasis of an abdominal malignancy.³³

SIGNS ON FURTHER STUDIES

Laboratory evaluation may show signs of poor oral intake and electrolyte abnormalities secondary to chronic nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, including hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis and hypokalemia.

The underlying cause of gastric outlet obstruction has major implications for treatment and prognosis and cannot be differentiated by clinical presentation alone.^1,9 Diagnosis is based on clinical features and radiologic or endoscopic evaluation consistent with gastric outlet obstruction.

Plain radiography may reveal an enlarged gastric bubble, and contrast studies may be useful to determine whether the obstruction is partial or complete, depending on whether the contrast passes into the small bowel.

Upper endoscopy is often needed to establish the diagnosis and cause. Emptying the stomach with a nasogastric tube is recommended before endoscopy to minimize the risk of aspiration during the procedure, and endotracheal intubation should be considered for airway protection.³⁴ Findings of gastric outlet obstruction on upper endoscopy include retained food and liquid. Endoscopic biopsy is important to differentiate between benign and malignant causes. For patients with malignancy, endoscopic ultrasonography is useful for diagnosis via tissue sampling with fine-needle aspiration and locoregional staging.³⁵

A strategy. Most patients whose clinical presentation suggests gastric outlet obstruction require cross-sectional radiologic imaging, upper endoscopy, or both.³⁶ CT is the preferred imaging study to evaluate for intestinal obstruction.^36,37 Patients with suspected complete obstruction or perforation should undergo CT before upper endoscopy. Oral contrast may interfere with endoscopy and should be avoided if endoscopy is planned. Additionally, giving oral contrast may worsen patient discomfort and increase the risk of nausea, vomiting, and aspiration.^36,37

Following radiographic evaluation, upper endoscopy can be performed after gastric decompression to identify the location and extent of the obstruction and to potentially provide a definitive diagnosis with biopsy.³⁶

DIFFERENTIATE FROM GASTROPARESIS

Gastroparesis is a chronic neuromuscular disorder characterized by delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction.³⁸ The most common causes are diabetes, surgery, and idiopathy. Other causes include viral infection, connective tissue diseases, ischemia, infiltrative disorders, radiation, neurologic disorders, and paraneoplastic syndromes.^39,40

Gastric outlet obstruction and gastroparesis share clinical symptoms including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, early satiety, and weight loss and are important to differentiate.^36,38 Although abdominal pain may be present in both gastric outlet obstruction and gastroparesis, in gastroparesis it tends not to be the dominant symptom.⁴⁰

Gastric scintigraphy is most commonly used to objectively quantify delayed gastric emptying.³⁹ Upper endoscopy is imperative to exclude mechanical obstruction.³⁹

 

 

MANAGEMENT

Initially, patients with signs and symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction should be given:

• Nothing by mouth (NPO)
• Intravenous fluids to correct volume depletion and electrolyte abnormalities
• A nasogastric tube for gastric decompression and symptom relief if symptoms persist despite being NPO
• A parenteral proton pump inhibitor, regardless of the cause of obstruction, to decrease gastric secretions⁴¹
• Medications for pain and nausea, if needed.

Definitive treatment of gastric outlet obstruction depends on the underlying cause, whether benign or malignant.

Management of benign gastric outlet obstruction

Symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction resolve spontaneously in about half of cases caused by acute peptic ulcer disease, as acute inflammation resolves.^9,22

Endoscopic dilation is an important option in patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction, including peptic ulcer disease. Peptic ulcer disease-induced gastric outlet obstruction can be safely treated with endoscopic balloon dilation. This treatment almost always relieves symptoms immediately; however, the long-term response has varied from 16% to 100%, and patients may require more than 1 dilation procedure.^25,42,43 The need for 2 or more dilation procedures may predict need for surgery.⁴⁴ Gastric outlet obstruction after caustic ingestion or endoscopic submucosal dissection may also respond to endoscopic balloon dilation.³⁶

Eradication of H pylori may be effective and lead to complete resolution of symptoms in patients with gastric outlet obstruction due to this infection.^45–47

NSAIDs should be discontinued in patients with peptic ulcer disease and gastric outlet obstruction. These drugs damage the gastrointestinal mucosa by inhibiting cyclo-oxygenase (COX) enzymes and decreasing synthesis of prostaglandins, which are important for mucosal defense.⁴⁸ Patients may be unaware of NSAIDs contained in over-the-counter medications and may have difficulty discontinuing NSAIDs taken for pain.⁴⁹

These drugs are an important cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease and can be detected by platelet COX activity testing, although this test is not widely available. In a study of patients with peptic ulcer disease without definite NSAID use or H pylori infection, up to one-third had evidence of surreptitious NSAID use as detected by platelet COX activity testing.⁵⁰ In another study,⁵¹ platelet COX activity testing discovered over 20% more aspirin users than clinical history alone.

Surgery for patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction is used only when medical management and endoscopic dilation fail. Ideally, surgery should relieve the obstruction and target the underlying cause, such as peptic ulcer disease. Laparoscopic surgery is generally preferred to open surgery because patients can resume oral intake sooner, have a shorter hospital stay, and have less intraoperative blood loss.⁵² The simplest surgical procedure to relieve obstruction is laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction and peptic ulcer disease warrant laparoscopic vagotomy and antrectomy or distal gastrectomy. This removes the obstruction and the stimulus for gastric secretion.⁵³ An alternative is vagotomy with a drainage procedure (pyloroplasty or gastrojejunostomy), which has a similar postoperative course and reduction in gastric acid secretion compared with antrectomy or distal gastrectomy.^53,54

Daily proton pump inhibitors can be used for patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction not associated with peptic ulcer disease or risk factors; for such cases, vagotomy is not required.

Management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction may have intractable nausea and abdominal pain secondary to retention of gastric contents. The major goal of therapy is to improve symptoms and restore tolerance of an oral diet. The short-term prognosis of malignant gastric outlet obstruction is poor, with a median survival of 3 to 4 months, as these patients often have unresectable disease.⁵⁵

Surgical bypass used to be the standard of care for palliation of malignant gastric obstruction, but that was before endoscopic stenting was developed.

Endoscopic stenting allows patients to resume oral intake and get out of the hospital sooner with fewer complications than with open surgical bypass. It may be a more appropriate option for palliation of symptoms in patients with malignant obstruction who have a poor prognosis and prefer a less invasive intervention.^55,56

Endoscopic duodenal stenting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction has a success rate of greater than 90%, and most patients can tolerate a mechanical soft diet afterward.³⁴ The procedure is usually performed with a 9-cm or 12-cm self-expanding duodenal stent, 22 mm in diameter, placed over a guide wire under endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance (Figure 2). The stent is placed by removing the outer catheter, with distal-to-proximal stent deployment.

Patients who also have biliary obstruction may require biliary stent placement, which is generally performed before duodenal stenting. For patients with an endoscopic stent who develop biliary obstruction, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be attempted with placement of a biliary stent; however, these patients may require biliary drain placement by percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography or by endoscopic ultrasonographically guided transduodenal or transgastric biliary drainage.

From 20% to 30% of patients require repeated endoscopic stent placement, although most patients die within several months after stenting.³⁴ Surgical options for patients who do not respond to endoscopic stenting include open or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁵

Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy may provide better long-term outcomes than duodenal stenting for patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction and a life expectancy longer than a few months.

A 2017 retrospective study of 155 patients with gastric outlet obstruction secondary to unresectable gastric cancer suggested that those who underwent laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy had better oral intake, better tolerance of chemotherapy, and longer overall survival than those who underwent duodenal stenting. Postsurgical complications were more common in the laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy group (16%) than in the duodenal stenting group (0%).⁵⁷

In most of the studies comparing endoscopic stenting with surgery, the surgery was open gastrojejunostomy; there are limited data directly comparing stenting with laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁵ Endoscopic stenting is estimated to be significantly less costly than surgery, with a median cost of $12,000 less than gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁸ As an alternative to enteral stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy, ultrasonography-guided endoscopic gastrojejunostomy or gastroenterostomy with placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent is emerging as a third treatment option and is under active investigation.⁵⁹

Patients with malignancy that is potentially curable by resection should undergo surgical evaluation before consideration of endoscopic stenting. For patients who are not candidates for surgery or endoscopic stenting, a percutaneous gastrostomy tube can be considered for gastric decompression and symptom relief.

CASE CONCLUDED

The patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with endoscopic ultrasonography for evaluation of her pancreatic mass. Before the procedure, she was intubated to minimize the risk of aspiration due to persistent nausea and retained gastric contents. A large submucosal mass was found in the duodenal bulb. Endoscopic ultrasonography showed a mass within the pancreatic head with pancreatic duct obstruction. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy was performed, and pathology study revealed pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent stenting with a 22-mm by 12-cm WallFlex stent (Boston Scientific), which led to resolution of nausea and advancement to a mechanical soft diet on hospital discharge.

She was scheduled for follow-up in the outpatient clinic for treatment of pancreatic cancer.

A 72-year-old woman presents to the emergency department with progressive nausea and vomiting. One week earlier, she developed early satiety and nausea with vomiting after eating solid food. Three days later her symptoms progressed, and she became unable to take anything by mouth. The patient also experienced a 40-lb weight loss in the previous 3 months. She denies symptoms of abdominal pain, hematemesis, or melena. Her medical history includes cholecystectomy and type 2 diabetes mellitus, diagnosed 1 year ago. She has no family history of gastrointestinal malignancy. She says she smoked 1 pack a day in her 20s. She does not consume alcohol.

On physical examination, she is normotensive with a heart rate of 105 beats per minute. The oral mucosa is dry, and the abdomen is mildly distended and tender to palpation in the epigastrium. Laboratory evaluation reveals hypokalemia and metabolic alkalosis.

Computed tomography (CT) reveals a mass 3 cm by 4 cm in the pancreatic head. The mass has invaded the medial wall of the duodenum, with obstruction of the pancreatic and common bile ducts and extension into and occlusion of the superior mesenteric vein, with soft-tissue expansion around the superior mesenteric artery. CT also reveals retained stomach contents and an air-fluid level consistent with gastric outlet obstruction.

INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC BLOCKAGE

Gastric outlet obstruction, also called pyloric obstruction, is caused by intrinsic or extrinsic mechanical blockage of gastric emptying, generally in the distal stomach, pyloric channel, or duodenum, with associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and early satiety. It is encountered in both the clinic and the hospital.

Here, we review the causes, diagnosis, and management of this disorder.

BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CAUSES

In a retrospective study of 76 patients hospitalized with gastric outlet obstruction between 2006 and 2015 at our institution,² 29 cases (38%) were due to malignancy and 47 (62%) were due to benign causes. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma accounted for 13 cases (17%), while gastric adenocarcinoma accounted for 5 cases (7%); less common malignant causes were cholangiocarcinoma, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, duodenal adenocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metastatic disease. Of the benign causes, the most common were peptic ulcer disease (13 cases, 17%) and postoperative strictures or adhesions (11 cases, 14%).

These numbers reflect general trends around the world.

Less gastric cancer, more pancreatic cancer

The last several decades have seen a trend toward more cases due to cancer and fewer due to benign causes.^3–14

In earlier studies in both developed and developing countries, gastric adenocarcinoma was the most common malignant cause of gastric outlet obstruction. Since then, it has become less common in Western countries, although it remains more common in Asia and Africa.^7–14 This trend likely reflects environmental factors, including decreased prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection, a major risk factor for gastric cancer, in Western countries.^15–17

At the same time, pancreatic cancer is on the rise,¹⁶ and up to 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer develop gastric outlet obstruction.¹⁸ In a prospective observational study of 108 patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction undergoing endoscopic stenting, pancreatic cancer was by far the most common malignancy, occurring in 54% of patients, followed by gastric cancer in 13%.¹⁹

Less peptic ulcer disease, but still common

Peptic ulcer disease used to account for up to 90% of cases of gastric outlet obstruction, and it is still the most common benign cause.

In 1990, gastric outlet obstruction was estimated to occur in 5% to 10% of all hospital admissions for ulcer-related complications, accounting for 2,000 operations annually.^20,21 Gastric outlet obstruction now occurs in fewer than 5% of patients with duodenal ulcer disease and fewer than 2% of patients with gastric ulcer disease.²²

Peptic ulcer disease remains an important cause of obstruction in countries with poor access to acid-suppressing drugs.²³

Gastric outlet obstruction occurs in both acute and chronic peptic ulcer disease. In acute peptic ulcer disease, tissue inflammation and edema result in mechanical obstruction. Chronic peptic ulcer disease results in tissue scarring and fibrosis with strictures.²⁰

Environmental factors, including improved diet, hygiene, physical activity, and the decreased prevalence of H pylori infection, also contribute to the decreased prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and its complications, including gastric outlet obstruction.³ The continued occurrence of peptic ulcer disease is associated with widespread use of low-dose aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the most common causes of peptic ulcer disease in Western countries.^24,25

Other nonmalignant causes of gastric outlet obstruction are diverse and less common. They include caustic ingestion, postsurgical strictures, benign tumors of the gastrointestinal tract, Crohn disease, and pancreatic disorders including acute pancreatitis, pancreatic pseudocyst, chronic pancreatitis, and annular pancreas. Intramural duodenal hematoma may cause obstruction after blunt abdominal trauma, endoscopic biopsy, or gastrostomy tube migration, especially in the setting of a bleeding disorder or anticoagulation.²⁶

Tuberculosis should be suspected in countries in which it is common.⁷ In a prospective study of 64 patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction in India,²⁷ 16 (25%) had corrosive injury, 16 (25%) had tuberculosis, and 15 (23%) had peptic ulcer disease. Compared with patients with corrosive injury and peptic ulcer disease, patients with gastroduodenal tuberculosis had the best outcomes with appropriate treatment.

Other reported causes include Bouveret syndrome (an impacted gallstone in the proximal duodenum), phytobezoar, diaphragmatic hernia, gastric volvulus, and Ladd bands (peritoneal bands associated with intestinal malrotation).^7,28,29

 

 

PRESENTING SYMPTOMS

Symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction include nausea, nonbilious vomiting, epigastric pain, early satiety, abdominal distention, and weight loss.

In our patients, the most common presenting symptoms were nausea and vomiting (80%), followed by abdominal pain (72%); weight loss (15%), abdominal distention (15%), and early satiety (9%) were less common.²

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction secondary to malignancy generally present with a shorter duration of symptoms than those with peptic ulcer disease and are more likely to be older.^8,13 Other conditions with an acute onset of symptoms include gastric polyp prolapse, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube migration, gastric volvulus, and gallstone impaction.

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction associated with peptic ulcer disease generally have a long-standing history of symptoms, including dyspepsia and weight loss over several years.⁴

SIGNS ON EXAMINATION

On examination, look for signs of chronic gastric obstruction and its consequences, such as malnutrition, cachexia, volume depletion, and dental erosions.

A succussion splash may suggest gastric outlet obstruction. This is elicited by rocking the patient back and forth by the hips or abdomen while listening over the stomach for a splash, which may be heard without a stethoscope. The test is considered positive if present 3 or more hours after drinking fluids and suggests retention of gastric materials.^30,31

In thin individuals, chronic gastric outlet obstruction makes the stomach dilate and hypertrophy, which may be evident by a palpably thickened stomach with visible gastric peristalsis.⁴

Other notable findings on physical examination may include a palpable abdominal mass, epigastric pain, or an abnormality suggestive of metastatic gastric cancer, such as an enlarged left supraclavicular lymph node (Virchow node) or periumbilical lymph node (Sister Mary Joseph nodule). The Virchow node is at the junction of the thoracic duct and the left subclavian vein where the lymphatic circulation from the body drains into the systemic circulation, and it may be the first sign of gastric cancer.³² Sister Mary Joseph nodule (named after a surgical assistant to Dr. William James Mayo) refers to a palpable mass at the umbilicus, generally resulting from metastasis of an abdominal malignancy.³³

SIGNS ON FURTHER STUDIES

Laboratory evaluation may show signs of poor oral intake and electrolyte abnormalities secondary to chronic nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, including hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis and hypokalemia.

The underlying cause of gastric outlet obstruction has major implications for treatment and prognosis and cannot be differentiated by clinical presentation alone.^1,9 Diagnosis is based on clinical features and radiologic or endoscopic evaluation consistent with gastric outlet obstruction.

Plain radiography may reveal an enlarged gastric bubble, and contrast studies may be useful to determine whether the obstruction is partial or complete, depending on whether the contrast passes into the small bowel.

Upper endoscopy is often needed to establish the diagnosis and cause. Emptying the stomach with a nasogastric tube is recommended before endoscopy to minimize the risk of aspiration during the procedure, and endotracheal intubation should be considered for airway protection.³⁴ Findings of gastric outlet obstruction on upper endoscopy include retained food and liquid. Endoscopic biopsy is important to differentiate between benign and malignant causes. For patients with malignancy, endoscopic ultrasonography is useful for diagnosis via tissue sampling with fine-needle aspiration and locoregional staging.³⁵

A strategy. Most patients whose clinical presentation suggests gastric outlet obstruction require cross-sectional radiologic imaging, upper endoscopy, or both.³⁶ CT is the preferred imaging study to evaluate for intestinal obstruction.^36,37 Patients with suspected complete obstruction or perforation should undergo CT before upper endoscopy. Oral contrast may interfere with endoscopy and should be avoided if endoscopy is planned. Additionally, giving oral contrast may worsen patient discomfort and increase the risk of nausea, vomiting, and aspiration.^36,37

Following radiographic evaluation, upper endoscopy can be performed after gastric decompression to identify the location and extent of the obstruction and to potentially provide a definitive diagnosis with biopsy.³⁶

DIFFERENTIATE FROM GASTROPARESIS

Gastroparesis is a chronic neuromuscular disorder characterized by delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction.³⁸ The most common causes are diabetes, surgery, and idiopathy. Other causes include viral infection, connective tissue diseases, ischemia, infiltrative disorders, radiation, neurologic disorders, and paraneoplastic syndromes.^39,40

Gastric outlet obstruction and gastroparesis share clinical symptoms including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, early satiety, and weight loss and are important to differentiate.^36,38 Although abdominal pain may be present in both gastric outlet obstruction and gastroparesis, in gastroparesis it tends not to be the dominant symptom.⁴⁰

Gastric scintigraphy is most commonly used to objectively quantify delayed gastric emptying.³⁹ Upper endoscopy is imperative to exclude mechanical obstruction.³⁹

 

 

MANAGEMENT

Initially, patients with signs and symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction should be given:

• Nothing by mouth (NPO)
• Intravenous fluids to correct volume depletion and electrolyte abnormalities
• A nasogastric tube for gastric decompression and symptom relief if symptoms persist despite being NPO
• A parenteral proton pump inhibitor, regardless of the cause of obstruction, to decrease gastric secretions⁴¹
• Medications for pain and nausea, if needed.

Definitive treatment of gastric outlet obstruction depends on the underlying cause, whether benign or malignant.

Management of benign gastric outlet obstruction

Symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction resolve spontaneously in about half of cases caused by acute peptic ulcer disease, as acute inflammation resolves.^9,22

Endoscopic dilation is an important option in patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction, including peptic ulcer disease. Peptic ulcer disease-induced gastric outlet obstruction can be safely treated with endoscopic balloon dilation. This treatment almost always relieves symptoms immediately; however, the long-term response has varied from 16% to 100%, and patients may require more than 1 dilation procedure.^25,42,43 The need for 2 or more dilation procedures may predict need for surgery.⁴⁴ Gastric outlet obstruction after caustic ingestion or endoscopic submucosal dissection may also respond to endoscopic balloon dilation.³⁶

Eradication of H pylori may be effective and lead to complete resolution of symptoms in patients with gastric outlet obstruction due to this infection.^45–47

NSAIDs should be discontinued in patients with peptic ulcer disease and gastric outlet obstruction. These drugs damage the gastrointestinal mucosa by inhibiting cyclo-oxygenase (COX) enzymes and decreasing synthesis of prostaglandins, which are important for mucosal defense.⁴⁸ Patients may be unaware of NSAIDs contained in over-the-counter medications and may have difficulty discontinuing NSAIDs taken for pain.⁴⁹

These drugs are an important cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease and can be detected by platelet COX activity testing, although this test is not widely available. In a study of patients with peptic ulcer disease without definite NSAID use or H pylori infection, up to one-third had evidence of surreptitious NSAID use as detected by platelet COX activity testing.⁵⁰ In another study,⁵¹ platelet COX activity testing discovered over 20% more aspirin users than clinical history alone.

Surgery for patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction is used only when medical management and endoscopic dilation fail. Ideally, surgery should relieve the obstruction and target the underlying cause, such as peptic ulcer disease. Laparoscopic surgery is generally preferred to open surgery because patients can resume oral intake sooner, have a shorter hospital stay, and have less intraoperative blood loss.⁵² The simplest surgical procedure to relieve obstruction is laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction and peptic ulcer disease warrant laparoscopic vagotomy and antrectomy or distal gastrectomy. This removes the obstruction and the stimulus for gastric secretion.⁵³ An alternative is vagotomy with a drainage procedure (pyloroplasty or gastrojejunostomy), which has a similar postoperative course and reduction in gastric acid secretion compared with antrectomy or distal gastrectomy.^53,54

Daily proton pump inhibitors can be used for patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction not associated with peptic ulcer disease or risk factors; for such cases, vagotomy is not required.

Management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction may have intractable nausea and abdominal pain secondary to retention of gastric contents. The major goal of therapy is to improve symptoms and restore tolerance of an oral diet. The short-term prognosis of malignant gastric outlet obstruction is poor, with a median survival of 3 to 4 months, as these patients often have unresectable disease.⁵⁵

Surgical bypass used to be the standard of care for palliation of malignant gastric obstruction, but that was before endoscopic stenting was developed.

Endoscopic stenting allows patients to resume oral intake and get out of the hospital sooner with fewer complications than with open surgical bypass. It may be a more appropriate option for palliation of symptoms in patients with malignant obstruction who have a poor prognosis and prefer a less invasive intervention.^55,56

Endoscopic duodenal stenting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction has a success rate of greater than 90%, and most patients can tolerate a mechanical soft diet afterward.³⁴ The procedure is usually performed with a 9-cm or 12-cm self-expanding duodenal stent, 22 mm in diameter, placed over a guide wire under endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance (Figure 2). The stent is placed by removing the outer catheter, with distal-to-proximal stent deployment.

Patients who also have biliary obstruction may require biliary stent placement, which is generally performed before duodenal stenting. For patients with an endoscopic stent who develop biliary obstruction, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be attempted with placement of a biliary stent; however, these patients may require biliary drain placement by percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography or by endoscopic ultrasonographically guided transduodenal or transgastric biliary drainage.

From 20% to 30% of patients require repeated endoscopic stent placement, although most patients die within several months after stenting.³⁴ Surgical options for patients who do not respond to endoscopic stenting include open or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁵

Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy may provide better long-term outcomes than duodenal stenting for patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction and a life expectancy longer than a few months.

A 2017 retrospective study of 155 patients with gastric outlet obstruction secondary to unresectable gastric cancer suggested that those who underwent laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy had better oral intake, better tolerance of chemotherapy, and longer overall survival than those who underwent duodenal stenting. Postsurgical complications were more common in the laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy group (16%) than in the duodenal stenting group (0%).⁵⁷

In most of the studies comparing endoscopic stenting with surgery, the surgery was open gastrojejunostomy; there are limited data directly comparing stenting with laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁵ Endoscopic stenting is estimated to be significantly less costly than surgery, with a median cost of $12,000 less than gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁸ As an alternative to enteral stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy, ultrasonography-guided endoscopic gastrojejunostomy or gastroenterostomy with placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent is emerging as a third treatment option and is under active investigation.⁵⁹

Patients with malignancy that is potentially curable by resection should undergo surgical evaluation before consideration of endoscopic stenting. For patients who are not candidates for surgery or endoscopic stenting, a percutaneous gastrostomy tube can be considered for gastric decompression and symptom relief.

CASE CONCLUDED

The patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with endoscopic ultrasonography for evaluation of her pancreatic mass. Before the procedure, she was intubated to minimize the risk of aspiration due to persistent nausea and retained gastric contents. A large submucosal mass was found in the duodenal bulb. Endoscopic ultrasonography showed a mass within the pancreatic head with pancreatic duct obstruction. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy was performed, and pathology study revealed pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent stenting with a 22-mm by 12-cm WallFlex stent (Boston Scientific), which led to resolution of nausea and advancement to a mechanical soft diet on hospital discharge.

She was scheduled for follow-up in the outpatient clinic for treatment of pancreatic cancer.

A 72-year-old woman presents to the emergency department with progressive nausea and vomiting. One week earlier, she developed early satiety and nausea with vomiting after eating solid food. Three days later her symptoms progressed, and she became unable to take anything by mouth. The patient also experienced a 40-lb weight loss in the previous 3 months. She denies symptoms of abdominal pain, hematemesis, or melena. Her medical history includes cholecystectomy and type 2 diabetes mellitus, diagnosed 1 year ago. She has no family history of gastrointestinal malignancy. She says she smoked 1 pack a day in her 20s. She does not consume alcohol.

On physical examination, she is normotensive with a heart rate of 105 beats per minute. The oral mucosa is dry, and the abdomen is mildly distended and tender to palpation in the epigastrium. Laboratory evaluation reveals hypokalemia and metabolic alkalosis.

Computed tomography (CT) reveals a mass 3 cm by 4 cm in the pancreatic head. The mass has invaded the medial wall of the duodenum, with obstruction of the pancreatic and common bile ducts and extension into and occlusion of the superior mesenteric vein, with soft-tissue expansion around the superior mesenteric artery. CT also reveals retained stomach contents and an air-fluid level consistent with gastric outlet obstruction.

INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC BLOCKAGE

Gastric outlet obstruction, also called pyloric obstruction, is caused by intrinsic or extrinsic mechanical blockage of gastric emptying, generally in the distal stomach, pyloric channel, or duodenum, with associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and early satiety. It is encountered in both the clinic and the hospital.

Here, we review the causes, diagnosis, and management of this disorder.

BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CAUSES

In a retrospective study of 76 patients hospitalized with gastric outlet obstruction between 2006 and 2015 at our institution,² 29 cases (38%) were due to malignancy and 47 (62%) were due to benign causes. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma accounted for 13 cases (17%), while gastric adenocarcinoma accounted for 5 cases (7%); less common malignant causes were cholangiocarcinoma, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, duodenal adenocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metastatic disease. Of the benign causes, the most common were peptic ulcer disease (13 cases, 17%) and postoperative strictures or adhesions (11 cases, 14%).

These numbers reflect general trends around the world.

Less gastric cancer, more pancreatic cancer

The last several decades have seen a trend toward more cases due to cancer and fewer due to benign causes.^3–14

In earlier studies in both developed and developing countries, gastric adenocarcinoma was the most common malignant cause of gastric outlet obstruction. Since then, it has become less common in Western countries, although it remains more common in Asia and Africa.^7–14 This trend likely reflects environmental factors, including decreased prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection, a major risk factor for gastric cancer, in Western countries.^15–17

At the same time, pancreatic cancer is on the rise,¹⁶ and up to 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer develop gastric outlet obstruction.¹⁸ In a prospective observational study of 108 patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction undergoing endoscopic stenting, pancreatic cancer was by far the most common malignancy, occurring in 54% of patients, followed by gastric cancer in 13%.¹⁹

Less peptic ulcer disease, but still common

Peptic ulcer disease used to account for up to 90% of cases of gastric outlet obstruction, and it is still the most common benign cause.

In 1990, gastric outlet obstruction was estimated to occur in 5% to 10% of all hospital admissions for ulcer-related complications, accounting for 2,000 operations annually.^20,21 Gastric outlet obstruction now occurs in fewer than 5% of patients with duodenal ulcer disease and fewer than 2% of patients with gastric ulcer disease.²²

Peptic ulcer disease remains an important cause of obstruction in countries with poor access to acid-suppressing drugs.²³

Gastric outlet obstruction occurs in both acute and chronic peptic ulcer disease. In acute peptic ulcer disease, tissue inflammation and edema result in mechanical obstruction. Chronic peptic ulcer disease results in tissue scarring and fibrosis with strictures.²⁰

Environmental factors, including improved diet, hygiene, physical activity, and the decreased prevalence of H pylori infection, also contribute to the decreased prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and its complications, including gastric outlet obstruction.³ The continued occurrence of peptic ulcer disease is associated with widespread use of low-dose aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the most common causes of peptic ulcer disease in Western countries.^24,25

Other nonmalignant causes of gastric outlet obstruction are diverse and less common. They include caustic ingestion, postsurgical strictures, benign tumors of the gastrointestinal tract, Crohn disease, and pancreatic disorders including acute pancreatitis, pancreatic pseudocyst, chronic pancreatitis, and annular pancreas. Intramural duodenal hematoma may cause obstruction after blunt abdominal trauma, endoscopic biopsy, or gastrostomy tube migration, especially in the setting of a bleeding disorder or anticoagulation.²⁶

Tuberculosis should be suspected in countries in which it is common.⁷ In a prospective study of 64 patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction in India,²⁷ 16 (25%) had corrosive injury, 16 (25%) had tuberculosis, and 15 (23%) had peptic ulcer disease. Compared with patients with corrosive injury and peptic ulcer disease, patients with gastroduodenal tuberculosis had the best outcomes with appropriate treatment.

Other reported causes include Bouveret syndrome (an impacted gallstone in the proximal duodenum), phytobezoar, diaphragmatic hernia, gastric volvulus, and Ladd bands (peritoneal bands associated with intestinal malrotation).^7,28,29

 

 

PRESENTING SYMPTOMS

Symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction include nausea, nonbilious vomiting, epigastric pain, early satiety, abdominal distention, and weight loss.

In our patients, the most common presenting symptoms were nausea and vomiting (80%), followed by abdominal pain (72%); weight loss (15%), abdominal distention (15%), and early satiety (9%) were less common.²

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction secondary to malignancy generally present with a shorter duration of symptoms than those with peptic ulcer disease and are more likely to be older.^8,13 Other conditions with an acute onset of symptoms include gastric polyp prolapse, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube migration, gastric volvulus, and gallstone impaction.

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction associated with peptic ulcer disease generally have a long-standing history of symptoms, including dyspepsia and weight loss over several years.⁴

SIGNS ON EXAMINATION

On examination, look for signs of chronic gastric obstruction and its consequences, such as malnutrition, cachexia, volume depletion, and dental erosions.

A succussion splash may suggest gastric outlet obstruction. This is elicited by rocking the patient back and forth by the hips or abdomen while listening over the stomach for a splash, which may be heard without a stethoscope. The test is considered positive if present 3 or more hours after drinking fluids and suggests retention of gastric materials.^30,31

In thin individuals, chronic gastric outlet obstruction makes the stomach dilate and hypertrophy, which may be evident by a palpably thickened stomach with visible gastric peristalsis.⁴

Other notable findings on physical examination may include a palpable abdominal mass, epigastric pain, or an abnormality suggestive of metastatic gastric cancer, such as an enlarged left supraclavicular lymph node (Virchow node) or periumbilical lymph node (Sister Mary Joseph nodule). The Virchow node is at the junction of the thoracic duct and the left subclavian vein where the lymphatic circulation from the body drains into the systemic circulation, and it may be the first sign of gastric cancer.³² Sister Mary Joseph nodule (named after a surgical assistant to Dr. William James Mayo) refers to a palpable mass at the umbilicus, generally resulting from metastasis of an abdominal malignancy.³³

SIGNS ON FURTHER STUDIES

Laboratory evaluation may show signs of poor oral intake and electrolyte abnormalities secondary to chronic nausea, vomiting, and dehydration, including hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis and hypokalemia.

The underlying cause of gastric outlet obstruction has major implications for treatment and prognosis and cannot be differentiated by clinical presentation alone.^1,9 Diagnosis is based on clinical features and radiologic or endoscopic evaluation consistent with gastric outlet obstruction.

Plain radiography may reveal an enlarged gastric bubble, and contrast studies may be useful to determine whether the obstruction is partial or complete, depending on whether the contrast passes into the small bowel.

Upper endoscopy is often needed to establish the diagnosis and cause. Emptying the stomach with a nasogastric tube is recommended before endoscopy to minimize the risk of aspiration during the procedure, and endotracheal intubation should be considered for airway protection.³⁴ Findings of gastric outlet obstruction on upper endoscopy include retained food and liquid. Endoscopic biopsy is important to differentiate between benign and malignant causes. For patients with malignancy, endoscopic ultrasonography is useful for diagnosis via tissue sampling with fine-needle aspiration and locoregional staging.³⁵

A strategy. Most patients whose clinical presentation suggests gastric outlet obstruction require cross-sectional radiologic imaging, upper endoscopy, or both.³⁶ CT is the preferred imaging study to evaluate for intestinal obstruction.^36,37 Patients with suspected complete obstruction or perforation should undergo CT before upper endoscopy. Oral contrast may interfere with endoscopy and should be avoided if endoscopy is planned. Additionally, giving oral contrast may worsen patient discomfort and increase the risk of nausea, vomiting, and aspiration.^36,37

Following radiographic evaluation, upper endoscopy can be performed after gastric decompression to identify the location and extent of the obstruction and to potentially provide a definitive diagnosis with biopsy.³⁶

DIFFERENTIATE FROM GASTROPARESIS

Gastroparesis is a chronic neuromuscular disorder characterized by delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction.³⁸ The most common causes are diabetes, surgery, and idiopathy. Other causes include viral infection, connective tissue diseases, ischemia, infiltrative disorders, radiation, neurologic disorders, and paraneoplastic syndromes.^39,40

Gastric outlet obstruction and gastroparesis share clinical symptoms including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, early satiety, and weight loss and are important to differentiate.^36,38 Although abdominal pain may be present in both gastric outlet obstruction and gastroparesis, in gastroparesis it tends not to be the dominant symptom.⁴⁰

Gastric scintigraphy is most commonly used to objectively quantify delayed gastric emptying.³⁹ Upper endoscopy is imperative to exclude mechanical obstruction.³⁹

 

 

MANAGEMENT

Initially, patients with signs and symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction should be given:

• Nothing by mouth (NPO)
• Intravenous fluids to correct volume depletion and electrolyte abnormalities
• A nasogastric tube for gastric decompression and symptom relief if symptoms persist despite being NPO
• A parenteral proton pump inhibitor, regardless of the cause of obstruction, to decrease gastric secretions⁴¹
• Medications for pain and nausea, if needed.

Definitive treatment of gastric outlet obstruction depends on the underlying cause, whether benign or malignant.

Management of benign gastric outlet obstruction

Symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction resolve spontaneously in about half of cases caused by acute peptic ulcer disease, as acute inflammation resolves.^9,22

Endoscopic dilation is an important option in patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction, including peptic ulcer disease. Peptic ulcer disease-induced gastric outlet obstruction can be safely treated with endoscopic balloon dilation. This treatment almost always relieves symptoms immediately; however, the long-term response has varied from 16% to 100%, and patients may require more than 1 dilation procedure.^25,42,43 The need for 2 or more dilation procedures may predict need for surgery.⁴⁴ Gastric outlet obstruction after caustic ingestion or endoscopic submucosal dissection may also respond to endoscopic balloon dilation.³⁶

Eradication of H pylori may be effective and lead to complete resolution of symptoms in patients with gastric outlet obstruction due to this infection.^45–47

NSAIDs should be discontinued in patients with peptic ulcer disease and gastric outlet obstruction. These drugs damage the gastrointestinal mucosa by inhibiting cyclo-oxygenase (COX) enzymes and decreasing synthesis of prostaglandins, which are important for mucosal defense.⁴⁸ Patients may be unaware of NSAIDs contained in over-the-counter medications and may have difficulty discontinuing NSAIDs taken for pain.⁴⁹

These drugs are an important cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease and can be detected by platelet COX activity testing, although this test is not widely available. In a study of patients with peptic ulcer disease without definite NSAID use or H pylori infection, up to one-third had evidence of surreptitious NSAID use as detected by platelet COX activity testing.⁵⁰ In another study,⁵¹ platelet COX activity testing discovered over 20% more aspirin users than clinical history alone.

Surgery for patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction is used only when medical management and endoscopic dilation fail. Ideally, surgery should relieve the obstruction and target the underlying cause, such as peptic ulcer disease. Laparoscopic surgery is generally preferred to open surgery because patients can resume oral intake sooner, have a shorter hospital stay, and have less intraoperative blood loss.⁵² The simplest surgical procedure to relieve obstruction is laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.

Patients with gastric outlet obstruction and peptic ulcer disease warrant laparoscopic vagotomy and antrectomy or distal gastrectomy. This removes the obstruction and the stimulus for gastric secretion.⁵³ An alternative is vagotomy with a drainage procedure (pyloroplasty or gastrojejunostomy), which has a similar postoperative course and reduction in gastric acid secretion compared with antrectomy or distal gastrectomy.^53,54

Daily proton pump inhibitors can be used for patients with benign gastric outlet obstruction not associated with peptic ulcer disease or risk factors; for such cases, vagotomy is not required.

Management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction may have intractable nausea and abdominal pain secondary to retention of gastric contents. The major goal of therapy is to improve symptoms and restore tolerance of an oral diet. The short-term prognosis of malignant gastric outlet obstruction is poor, with a median survival of 3 to 4 months, as these patients often have unresectable disease.⁵⁵

Surgical bypass used to be the standard of care for palliation of malignant gastric obstruction, but that was before endoscopic stenting was developed.

Endoscopic stenting allows patients to resume oral intake and get out of the hospital sooner with fewer complications than with open surgical bypass. It may be a more appropriate option for palliation of symptoms in patients with malignant obstruction who have a poor prognosis and prefer a less invasive intervention.^55,56

Endoscopic duodenal stenting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction has a success rate of greater than 90%, and most patients can tolerate a mechanical soft diet afterward.³⁴ The procedure is usually performed with a 9-cm or 12-cm self-expanding duodenal stent, 22 mm in diameter, placed over a guide wire under endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance (Figure 2). The stent is placed by removing the outer catheter, with distal-to-proximal stent deployment.

Patients who also have biliary obstruction may require biliary stent placement, which is generally performed before duodenal stenting. For patients with an endoscopic stent who develop biliary obstruction, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be attempted with placement of a biliary stent; however, these patients may require biliary drain placement by percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography or by endoscopic ultrasonographically guided transduodenal or transgastric biliary drainage.

From 20% to 30% of patients require repeated endoscopic stent placement, although most patients die within several months after stenting.³⁴ Surgical options for patients who do not respond to endoscopic stenting include open or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁵

Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy may provide better long-term outcomes than duodenal stenting for patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction and a life expectancy longer than a few months.

A 2017 retrospective study of 155 patients with gastric outlet obstruction secondary to unresectable gastric cancer suggested that those who underwent laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy had better oral intake, better tolerance of chemotherapy, and longer overall survival than those who underwent duodenal stenting. Postsurgical complications were more common in the laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy group (16%) than in the duodenal stenting group (0%).⁵⁷

In most of the studies comparing endoscopic stenting with surgery, the surgery was open gastrojejunostomy; there are limited data directly comparing stenting with laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁵ Endoscopic stenting is estimated to be significantly less costly than surgery, with a median cost of $12,000 less than gastrojejunostomy.⁵⁸ As an alternative to enteral stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy, ultrasonography-guided endoscopic gastrojejunostomy or gastroenterostomy with placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent is emerging as a third treatment option and is under active investigation.⁵⁹

Patients with malignancy that is potentially curable by resection should undergo surgical evaluation before consideration of endoscopic stenting. For patients who are not candidates for surgery or endoscopic stenting, a percutaneous gastrostomy tube can be considered for gastric decompression and symptom relief.

CASE CONCLUDED

The patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with endoscopic ultrasonography for evaluation of her pancreatic mass. Before the procedure, she was intubated to minimize the risk of aspiration due to persistent nausea and retained gastric contents. A large submucosal mass was found in the duodenal bulb. Endoscopic ultrasonography showed a mass within the pancreatic head with pancreatic duct obstruction. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy was performed, and pathology study revealed pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent stenting with a 22-mm by 12-cm WallFlex stent (Boston Scientific), which led to resolution of nausea and advancement to a mechanical soft diet on hospital discharge.

She was scheduled for follow-up in the outpatient clinic for treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Background: Studies abound on the accelerated cost and health care activities of patients toward the end of life. Previous analyses of Medicare trends of medical care at the time of death have been compiled in 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2011; this study reexamines recent trends.

Study design: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage decedents during 2000-2015.

Setting: Medicare patients in acute care hospitals, home/community, hospice inpatient care units, or nursing homes.

Synopsis: Approximately 1.4 million Medicare Fee-for-Service decedents and 870,000 Medicare Advantage decedents were studied in a random sample that included 20% of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients in the years 2000, 2005, 2009, 2011, and 2015 and 100% of Medicare Advantage patients in the years 2011 and 2015. Deaths of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients occurring in acute care hospitals and nursing homes decreased from 32.6% (95% confidence interval, 32.4%-32.8%) in 2000 to 19.8% (95% CI, 19.6%-20.0%) in 2015. Patients who died while receiving hospice services increased from 21.6% (95% CI, 21.5%-21.8%) in 2000 to 50.4% (95% CI, 50.2%-50.6%) in 2015. Review of Medicare Advantage data demonstrated similar shifts.

Although there are concerns about the accuracy of reported location of community deaths and these results may not be generalizable to other, non-Medicare populations, the study overall adds statistical data on death trends and suggests an improvement in the use of palliative and hospice care services.

Bottom line: Compared with previous years, fewer Medicare beneficiaries are dying in acute care settings, and more beneficiaries are receiving hospice care in other settings.

Citation: Teno J et al. Site of death, place of care, and health care transitions among U. S. Medicare beneficiaries between 2000-2015. JAMA. 2018;320(3):264-71.

Dr. Smith is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Background: Studies abound on the accelerated cost and health care activities of patients toward the end of life. Previous analyses of Medicare trends of medical care at the time of death have been compiled in 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2011; this study reexamines recent trends.

Study design: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage decedents during 2000-2015.

Setting: Medicare patients in acute care hospitals, home/community, hospice inpatient care units, or nursing homes.

Synopsis: Approximately 1.4 million Medicare Fee-for-Service decedents and 870,000 Medicare Advantage decedents were studied in a random sample that included 20% of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients in the years 2000, 2005, 2009, 2011, and 2015 and 100% of Medicare Advantage patients in the years 2011 and 2015. Deaths of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients occurring in acute care hospitals and nursing homes decreased from 32.6% (95% confidence interval, 32.4%-32.8%) in 2000 to 19.8% (95% CI, 19.6%-20.0%) in 2015. Patients who died while receiving hospice services increased from 21.6% (95% CI, 21.5%-21.8%) in 2000 to 50.4% (95% CI, 50.2%-50.6%) in 2015. Review of Medicare Advantage data demonstrated similar shifts.

Although there are concerns about the accuracy of reported location of community deaths and these results may not be generalizable to other, non-Medicare populations, the study overall adds statistical data on death trends and suggests an improvement in the use of palliative and hospice care services.

Bottom line: Compared with previous years, fewer Medicare beneficiaries are dying in acute care settings, and more beneficiaries are receiving hospice care in other settings.

Citation: Teno J et al. Site of death, place of care, and health care transitions among U. S. Medicare beneficiaries between 2000-2015. JAMA. 2018;320(3):264-71.

Dr. Smith is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Background: Studies abound on the accelerated cost and health care activities of patients toward the end of life. Previous analyses of Medicare trends of medical care at the time of death have been compiled in 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2011; this study reexamines recent trends.

Study design: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage decedents during 2000-2015.

Setting: Medicare patients in acute care hospitals, home/community, hospice inpatient care units, or nursing homes.

Synopsis: Approximately 1.4 million Medicare Fee-for-Service decedents and 870,000 Medicare Advantage decedents were studied in a random sample that included 20% of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients in the years 2000, 2005, 2009, 2011, and 2015 and 100% of Medicare Advantage patients in the years 2011 and 2015. Deaths of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients occurring in acute care hospitals and nursing homes decreased from 32.6% (95% confidence interval, 32.4%-32.8%) in 2000 to 19.8% (95% CI, 19.6%-20.0%) in 2015. Patients who died while receiving hospice services increased from 21.6% (95% CI, 21.5%-21.8%) in 2000 to 50.4% (95% CI, 50.2%-50.6%) in 2015. Review of Medicare Advantage data demonstrated similar shifts.

Although there are concerns about the accuracy of reported location of community deaths and these results may not be generalizable to other, non-Medicare populations, the study overall adds statistical data on death trends and suggests an improvement in the use of palliative and hospice care services.

Bottom line: Compared with previous years, fewer Medicare beneficiaries are dying in acute care settings, and more beneficiaries are receiving hospice care in other settings.

Citation: Teno J et al. Site of death, place of care, and health care transitions among U. S. Medicare beneficiaries between 2000-2015. JAMA. 2018;320(3):264-71.

Dr. Smith is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Rapid deterioration of life quality of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) begins years before death and indicates that early, integrated palliative care should be a priority, according to the finding of a survey study.

IPFeditor/Wikimedia Commons

“Patients with IPF suffer from exceptionally low [health-related quality of life] together with severe breathlessness and fatigue already two years before death. In addition, physical and emotional well-being further deteriorates near death concurrently with escalating overall symptom burden,” wrote Kaisa Rajala, MD, and her colleagues at Helsinki University Hospital.

They conducted a substudy of patients in the larger FinnishIPF study to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptom burden in the period before death. Among 300 patients invited to participate, 247 agreed. Patient disease and sociodemographic data were collected from the FinnishIPF records and the study group completed questionnaires five times at 6 month intervals. The study began in April 2015 and continued until August 2017, by which time 92 (37%) of the patients had died (BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2018;18:172; doi: 0.1186/s12890-018-0738-x).

The investigators used self-reporting tools to look at HRQOL and symptom burden: RAND 36-item Health Survey (RAND-36), the Modified Medical Research and Council Dyspnea Scale (MMRC), the Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rajala K et al. BMC Pulm Med. 2018;18:172. doi: 0.1186/s12890-018-0738-x.

Rapid deterioration of life quality of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) begins years before death and indicates that early, integrated palliative care should be a priority, according to the finding of a survey study.

IPFeditor/Wikimedia Commons

“Patients with IPF suffer from exceptionally low [health-related quality of life] together with severe breathlessness and fatigue already two years before death. In addition, physical and emotional well-being further deteriorates near death concurrently with escalating overall symptom burden,” wrote Kaisa Rajala, MD, and her colleagues at Helsinki University Hospital.

They conducted a substudy of patients in the larger FinnishIPF study to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptom burden in the period before death. Among 300 patients invited to participate, 247 agreed. Patient disease and sociodemographic data were collected from the FinnishIPF records and the study group completed questionnaires five times at 6 month intervals. The study began in April 2015 and continued until August 2017, by which time 92 (37%) of the patients had died (BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2018;18:172; doi: 0.1186/s12890-018-0738-x).

The investigators used self-reporting tools to look at HRQOL and symptom burden: RAND 36-item Health Survey (RAND-36), the Modified Medical Research and Council Dyspnea Scale (MMRC), the Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rajala K et al. BMC Pulm Med. 2018;18:172. doi: 0.1186/s12890-018-0738-x.

Rapid deterioration of life quality of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) begins years before death and indicates that early, integrated palliative care should be a priority, according to the finding of a survey study.

IPFeditor/Wikimedia Commons

“Patients with IPF suffer from exceptionally low [health-related quality of life] together with severe breathlessness and fatigue already two years before death. In addition, physical and emotional well-being further deteriorates near death concurrently with escalating overall symptom burden,” wrote Kaisa Rajala, MD, and her colleagues at Helsinki University Hospital.

They conducted a substudy of patients in the larger FinnishIPF study to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptom burden in the period before death. Among 300 patients invited to participate, 247 agreed. Patient disease and sociodemographic data were collected from the FinnishIPF records and the study group completed questionnaires five times at 6 month intervals. The study began in April 2015 and continued until August 2017, by which time 92 (37%) of the patients had died (BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2018;18:172; doi: 0.1186/s12890-018-0738-x).

The investigators used self-reporting tools to look at HRQOL and symptom burden: RAND 36-item Health Survey (RAND-36), the Modified Medical Research and Council Dyspnea Scale (MMRC), the Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rajala K et al. BMC Pulm Med. 2018;18:172. doi: 0.1186/s12890-018-0738-x.

Doctors are not taking advantage of Medicare codes designed to compensate them for time spent with discussing end-of-life plans with their Medicare patients.

Starting in 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began paying physicians for advance care planning discussions with the approval of two new codes: 99497 and 99498. The codes pay about $86 for the first 30 minutes of a face-to-face conversation with a patient, family member, and/or surrogate and about $75 for additional sessions. Services can be furnished in both inpatient and ambulatory settings, and payment is not limited to particular physician specialties.

In 2016, health care professionals in New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) billed Medicare 26,522 times for the advance care planning (ACP) codes for a total of 24,536 patients, which represented less than 1% of Medicare beneficiaries in New England at the time, according to Kimberly Pelland, MPH, of Healthcentric Advisors, Providence, R.I., and her colleagues. Most claims were billed in the office, followed by in nursing homes, and in hospitals; 40% of conversations occurred during an annual wellness visit (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8107).

Internists billed Medicare the most for ACP claims (65%), followed by family physicians (22%) gerontologists (5%), and oncologist/hematologists (0.3%), according to the analysis based on 2016 Medicare claims data and Census Bureau data. A greater proportion of patients with ACP claims were female, aged 85 years or older, enrolled in hospice, and died in the study year. Patients had higher odds of having an ACP claim if they were older and had lower income, and if they had cancer, heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, or dementia. Male patients who were Asian, black, and Hispanic had lower chances of having an ACP claim.

In a related study, Emmanuelle Belanger, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and her colleagues examined national Medicare data from 2016 to the third quarter of 2017. Across the United States, 2% of Medicare patients aged 65 years and older received advance care planning services that were billed under the ACP codes (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8615). Visits billed under the ACP codes increased from 538,275 to 633,214 during the same time period. Claim rates were higher among patients who died within the study period, reaching 3% in 2016 and 6% in 2017. The percentage of decedents with an ACP billed visit varied strongly across states, with states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming having the fewest ACP visits billed and states such as California and Nevada having the most. ACP billed visits increased in all settings in 2017, but primarily in hospitals and nursing homes. Nationally, internists billed the codes most (48%), followed by family physicians (28%).

While the two studies indicate low usage of the ACP codes, many physicians are discussing advance care planning with their patients, said Mary M. Newman, MD, an internist based in Lutherville, Md., and former American College of Physicians adviser to the American Medical Association Relative Scale Value Update Committee (RUC).

“What cannot be captured by tracking under Medicare claims data are those shorter conversations that we have frequently,” Dr. Newman said in an interview. “If we have a short conversation about advance care planning, it gets folded into our evaluation and management visit. It’s not going to be separately billed.”

At the same time, some patients are not ready to discuss end-of-life options and decline the discussions when asked, Dr. Newman said. Particularly for healthier patients, end of life care is not a primary focus, she noted.

“Not everybody’s ready to have an advance care planning [discussion] that lasts 16-45 minutes,” she said. “Many people over age 65 are not ready to deal with advance care planning in their day-to-day lives, and it may not be what they wish to discuss. I offer the option to patients and some say, ‘Yes, I’d love to,’ and others decline or postpone.”

Low usage of the ACP codes may be associated with lack of awareness, uncertainty about appropriate code use, or associated billing that is not part of the standard workflow, Ankita Mehta, MD, of Mount Sinai in New York wrote an editorial accompanying the studies (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8105).

“Regardless, the low rates of utilization of ACP codes is alarming and highlights the need to create strategies to integrate ACP discussions into standard practice and build ACP documentation and billing in clinical workflow,” Dr. Mehta said.

Dr. Newman agreed that more education among physicians is needed.

“The amount of education clinicians have received varies tremendously across the geography of the country,” she said. “I think the codes are going to be slowly adopted. The challenge to us is to make sure we’re all better educated on palliative care as people age and get sick and that we are sensitive to our patients explicit and implicit needs for these discussions.”

[email protected]

Doctors are not taking advantage of Medicare codes designed to compensate them for time spent with discussing end-of-life plans with their Medicare patients.

Starting in 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began paying physicians for advance care planning discussions with the approval of two new codes: 99497 and 99498. The codes pay about $86 for the first 30 minutes of a face-to-face conversation with a patient, family member, and/or surrogate and about $75 for additional sessions. Services can be furnished in both inpatient and ambulatory settings, and payment is not limited to particular physician specialties.

In 2016, health care professionals in New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) billed Medicare 26,522 times for the advance care planning (ACP) codes for a total of 24,536 patients, which represented less than 1% of Medicare beneficiaries in New England at the time, according to Kimberly Pelland, MPH, of Healthcentric Advisors, Providence, R.I., and her colleagues. Most claims were billed in the office, followed by in nursing homes, and in hospitals; 40% of conversations occurred during an annual wellness visit (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8107).

Internists billed Medicare the most for ACP claims (65%), followed by family physicians (22%) gerontologists (5%), and oncologist/hematologists (0.3%), according to the analysis based on 2016 Medicare claims data and Census Bureau data. A greater proportion of patients with ACP claims were female, aged 85 years or older, enrolled in hospice, and died in the study year. Patients had higher odds of having an ACP claim if they were older and had lower income, and if they had cancer, heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, or dementia. Male patients who were Asian, black, and Hispanic had lower chances of having an ACP claim.

In a related study, Emmanuelle Belanger, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and her colleagues examined national Medicare data from 2016 to the third quarter of 2017. Across the United States, 2% of Medicare patients aged 65 years and older received advance care planning services that were billed under the ACP codes (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8615). Visits billed under the ACP codes increased from 538,275 to 633,214 during the same time period. Claim rates were higher among patients who died within the study period, reaching 3% in 2016 and 6% in 2017. The percentage of decedents with an ACP billed visit varied strongly across states, with states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming having the fewest ACP visits billed and states such as California and Nevada having the most. ACP billed visits increased in all settings in 2017, but primarily in hospitals and nursing homes. Nationally, internists billed the codes most (48%), followed by family physicians (28%).

While the two studies indicate low usage of the ACP codes, many physicians are discussing advance care planning with their patients, said Mary M. Newman, MD, an internist based in Lutherville, Md., and former American College of Physicians adviser to the American Medical Association Relative Scale Value Update Committee (RUC).

“What cannot be captured by tracking under Medicare claims data are those shorter conversations that we have frequently,” Dr. Newman said in an interview. “If we have a short conversation about advance care planning, it gets folded into our evaluation and management visit. It’s not going to be separately billed.”

At the same time, some patients are not ready to discuss end-of-life options and decline the discussions when asked, Dr. Newman said. Particularly for healthier patients, end of life care is not a primary focus, she noted.

“Not everybody’s ready to have an advance care planning [discussion] that lasts 16-45 minutes,” she said. “Many people over age 65 are not ready to deal with advance care planning in their day-to-day lives, and it may not be what they wish to discuss. I offer the option to patients and some say, ‘Yes, I’d love to,’ and others decline or postpone.”

Low usage of the ACP codes may be associated with lack of awareness, uncertainty about appropriate code use, or associated billing that is not part of the standard workflow, Ankita Mehta, MD, of Mount Sinai in New York wrote an editorial accompanying the studies (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8105).

“Regardless, the low rates of utilization of ACP codes is alarming and highlights the need to create strategies to integrate ACP discussions into standard practice and build ACP documentation and billing in clinical workflow,” Dr. Mehta said.

Dr. Newman agreed that more education among physicians is needed.

“The amount of education clinicians have received varies tremendously across the geography of the country,” she said. “I think the codes are going to be slowly adopted. The challenge to us is to make sure we’re all better educated on palliative care as people age and get sick and that we are sensitive to our patients explicit and implicit needs for these discussions.”

[email protected]

Doctors are not taking advantage of Medicare codes designed to compensate them for time spent with discussing end-of-life plans with their Medicare patients.

Starting in 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began paying physicians for advance care planning discussions with the approval of two new codes: 99497 and 99498. The codes pay about $86 for the first 30 minutes of a face-to-face conversation with a patient, family member, and/or surrogate and about $75 for additional sessions. Services can be furnished in both inpatient and ambulatory settings, and payment is not limited to particular physician specialties.

In 2016, health care professionals in New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) billed Medicare 26,522 times for the advance care planning (ACP) codes for a total of 24,536 patients, which represented less than 1% of Medicare beneficiaries in New England at the time, according to Kimberly Pelland, MPH, of Healthcentric Advisors, Providence, R.I., and her colleagues. Most claims were billed in the office, followed by in nursing homes, and in hospitals; 40% of conversations occurred during an annual wellness visit (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8107).

Internists billed Medicare the most for ACP claims (65%), followed by family physicians (22%) gerontologists (5%), and oncologist/hematologists (0.3%), according to the analysis based on 2016 Medicare claims data and Census Bureau data. A greater proportion of patients with ACP claims were female, aged 85 years or older, enrolled in hospice, and died in the study year. Patients had higher odds of having an ACP claim if they were older and had lower income, and if they had cancer, heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, or dementia. Male patients who were Asian, black, and Hispanic had lower chances of having an ACP claim.

In a related study, Emmanuelle Belanger, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and her colleagues examined national Medicare data from 2016 to the third quarter of 2017. Across the United States, 2% of Medicare patients aged 65 years and older received advance care planning services that were billed under the ACP codes (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8615). Visits billed under the ACP codes increased from 538,275 to 633,214 during the same time period. Claim rates were higher among patients who died within the study period, reaching 3% in 2016 and 6% in 2017. The percentage of decedents with an ACP billed visit varied strongly across states, with states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming having the fewest ACP visits billed and states such as California and Nevada having the most. ACP billed visits increased in all settings in 2017, but primarily in hospitals and nursing homes. Nationally, internists billed the codes most (48%), followed by family physicians (28%).

While the two studies indicate low usage of the ACP codes, many physicians are discussing advance care planning with their patients, said Mary M. Newman, MD, an internist based in Lutherville, Md., and former American College of Physicians adviser to the American Medical Association Relative Scale Value Update Committee (RUC).

“What cannot be captured by tracking under Medicare claims data are those shorter conversations that we have frequently,” Dr. Newman said in an interview. “If we have a short conversation about advance care planning, it gets folded into our evaluation and management visit. It’s not going to be separately billed.”

At the same time, some patients are not ready to discuss end-of-life options and decline the discussions when asked, Dr. Newman said. Particularly for healthier patients, end of life care is not a primary focus, she noted.

“Not everybody’s ready to have an advance care planning [discussion] that lasts 16-45 minutes,” she said. “Many people over age 65 are not ready to deal with advance care planning in their day-to-day lives, and it may not be what they wish to discuss. I offer the option to patients and some say, ‘Yes, I’d love to,’ and others decline or postpone.”

Low usage of the ACP codes may be associated with lack of awareness, uncertainty about appropriate code use, or associated billing that is not part of the standard workflow, Ankita Mehta, MD, of Mount Sinai in New York wrote an editorial accompanying the studies (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 March 11. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8105).

“Regardless, the low rates of utilization of ACP codes is alarming and highlights the need to create strategies to integrate ACP discussions into standard practice and build ACP documentation and billing in clinical workflow,” Dr. Mehta said.

Dr. Newman agreed that more education among physicians is needed.

“The amount of education clinicians have received varies tremendously across the geography of the country,” she said. “I think the codes are going to be slowly adopted. The challenge to us is to make sure we’re all better educated on palliative care as people age and get sick and that we are sensitive to our patients explicit and implicit needs for these discussions.”

[email protected]

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report provides indispensable data about the scope of clinical services routinely provided by adult and pediatric hospitalists. This year’s SoHM report reveals that a growing number of Hospital Medicine Groups (HMGs) serving adults are involved in roles beyond the inpatient medical wards, including various surgical comanagement programs, outpatient care, and post-acute care services.

The survey also compares services provided by academic and nonacademic HMGs, which remain markedly different in some areas. As the landscape of health care continues to evolve, hospitalists transform their scope of services to meet the needs of the institutions and communities they serve.

In the previous three SoHM reports, it was well established that more than 87% of adult hospital medicine groups play some role in comanaging surgical patients. In this year’s SoHM report, that role was further stratified to capture the various subspecialties represented, and to identify whether the hospitalists generally served as admitting/attending physician or consultant.

Hospitalists’ roles in comanagement are most prominent for care of orthopedic and general surgery patients, but more than 50% of surveyed HMGs reported being involved in comanagement in some capacity with neurosurgery, obstetrics, and cardiovascular surgery. Additionally, almost 95% of surveyed adult HMGs reported that they provided comanagement services for at least one other surgical specialty that was not listed in the survey.

The report also displays comanagement services provided to various medical subspecialties, including neurology, GI/liver, oncology, and more. Of the medical subspecialties represented, adult HMGs comanaged GI/liver (98.2%) and oncology (97.7%) services more often than others.

Interestingly, more HMGs are providing care for patients beyond the walls of the hospital. In the 2018 SoHM report, over 17% of surveyed HMG respondents reported providing care in an outpatient setting, representing an increase of 6.5 percentage points over 2016. Most strikingly, from 2016 to 2018, there was a 12 percentage point increase in adult HMGs reporting services provided to post-acute care facilities (from 13.1% to 24.8%).

These trends were most notable in the Midwest region where nearly 28% of HMGs provide patient care in an outpatient setting and up to 34% in post-acute care facilities. In part, this trend may result from the increased emphasis on improving transitions of care, by providing prehospital preoperative services, postdischarge follow-up encounters, or offering posthospitalization extensivist care.

Within the hospital itself, there remain striking differences in certain services provided by academic and nonacademic HMGs serving adults. Nonacademic HMGs are far more likely to cover patients in an ICU than their academic counterparts (72.0% vs. 34.3%). In contrast, academic hospitalist groups were significantly more inclined to perform procedures. However, the report also showed that there was an overall downtrend of percentage of HMGs that cover patients in an ICU or perform procedures.

As the scope of hospitalist services continues to change over time, should there be concern for scope creep? It depends on how one might view the change. As health care becomes ever more complex, high-functioning HMGs are needed to navigate it, both within and beyond the hospital. Some might consider scope evolution to be a reflection of hospitalists being recognized for their ability to provide high-quality, efficient, and comprehensive care. Hospital medicine groups will likely continue to evolve to meet the needs of an ever-changing health care environment.

Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report provides indispensable data about the scope of clinical services routinely provided by adult and pediatric hospitalists. This year’s SoHM report reveals that a growing number of Hospital Medicine Groups (HMGs) serving adults are involved in roles beyond the inpatient medical wards, including various surgical comanagement programs, outpatient care, and post-acute care services.

The survey also compares services provided by academic and nonacademic HMGs, which remain markedly different in some areas. As the landscape of health care continues to evolve, hospitalists transform their scope of services to meet the needs of the institutions and communities they serve.

In the previous three SoHM reports, it was well established that more than 87% of adult hospital medicine groups play some role in comanaging surgical patients. In this year’s SoHM report, that role was further stratified to capture the various subspecialties represented, and to identify whether the hospitalists generally served as admitting/attending physician or consultant.

Hospitalists’ roles in comanagement are most prominent for care of orthopedic and general surgery patients, but more than 50% of surveyed HMGs reported being involved in comanagement in some capacity with neurosurgery, obstetrics, and cardiovascular surgery. Additionally, almost 95% of surveyed adult HMGs reported that they provided comanagement services for at least one other surgical specialty that was not listed in the survey.

The report also displays comanagement services provided to various medical subspecialties, including neurology, GI/liver, oncology, and more. Of the medical subspecialties represented, adult HMGs comanaged GI/liver (98.2%) and oncology (97.7%) services more often than others.

Interestingly, more HMGs are providing care for patients beyond the walls of the hospital. In the 2018 SoHM report, over 17% of surveyed HMG respondents reported providing care in an outpatient setting, representing an increase of 6.5 percentage points over 2016. Most strikingly, from 2016 to 2018, there was a 12 percentage point increase in adult HMGs reporting services provided to post-acute care facilities (from 13.1% to 24.8%).

These trends were most notable in the Midwest region where nearly 28% of HMGs provide patient care in an outpatient setting and up to 34% in post-acute care facilities. In part, this trend may result from the increased emphasis on improving transitions of care, by providing prehospital preoperative services, postdischarge follow-up encounters, or offering posthospitalization extensivist care.

Within the hospital itself, there remain striking differences in certain services provided by academic and nonacademic HMGs serving adults. Nonacademic HMGs are far more likely to cover patients in an ICU than their academic counterparts (72.0% vs. 34.3%). In contrast, academic hospitalist groups were significantly more inclined to perform procedures. However, the report also showed that there was an overall downtrend of percentage of HMGs that cover patients in an ICU or perform procedures.

As the scope of hospitalist services continues to change over time, should there be concern for scope creep? It depends on how one might view the change. As health care becomes ever more complex, high-functioning HMGs are needed to navigate it, both within and beyond the hospital. Some might consider scope evolution to be a reflection of hospitalists being recognized for their ability to provide high-quality, efficient, and comprehensive care. Hospital medicine groups will likely continue to evolve to meet the needs of an ever-changing health care environment.

Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report provides indispensable data about the scope of clinical services routinely provided by adult and pediatric hospitalists. This year’s SoHM report reveals that a growing number of Hospital Medicine Groups (HMGs) serving adults are involved in roles beyond the inpatient medical wards, including various surgical comanagement programs, outpatient care, and post-acute care services.

The survey also compares services provided by academic and nonacademic HMGs, which remain markedly different in some areas. As the landscape of health care continues to evolve, hospitalists transform their scope of services to meet the needs of the institutions and communities they serve.

In the previous three SoHM reports, it was well established that more than 87% of adult hospital medicine groups play some role in comanaging surgical patients. In this year’s SoHM report, that role was further stratified to capture the various subspecialties represented, and to identify whether the hospitalists generally served as admitting/attending physician or consultant.

Hospitalists’ roles in comanagement are most prominent for care of orthopedic and general surgery patients, but more than 50% of surveyed HMGs reported being involved in comanagement in some capacity with neurosurgery, obstetrics, and cardiovascular surgery. Additionally, almost 95% of surveyed adult HMGs reported that they provided comanagement services for at least one other surgical specialty that was not listed in the survey.

The report also displays comanagement services provided to various medical subspecialties, including neurology, GI/liver, oncology, and more. Of the medical subspecialties represented, adult HMGs comanaged GI/liver (98.2%) and oncology (97.7%) services more often than others.

Interestingly, more HMGs are providing care for patients beyond the walls of the hospital. In the 2018 SoHM report, over 17% of surveyed HMG respondents reported providing care in an outpatient setting, representing an increase of 6.5 percentage points over 2016. Most strikingly, from 2016 to 2018, there was a 12 percentage point increase in adult HMGs reporting services provided to post-acute care facilities (from 13.1% to 24.8%).

These trends were most notable in the Midwest region where nearly 28% of HMGs provide patient care in an outpatient setting and up to 34% in post-acute care facilities. In part, this trend may result from the increased emphasis on improving transitions of care, by providing prehospital preoperative services, postdischarge follow-up encounters, or offering posthospitalization extensivist care.

Within the hospital itself, there remain striking differences in certain services provided by academic and nonacademic HMGs serving adults. Nonacademic HMGs are far more likely to cover patients in an ICU than their academic counterparts (72.0% vs. 34.3%). In contrast, academic hospitalist groups were significantly more inclined to perform procedures. However, the report also showed that there was an overall downtrend of percentage of HMGs that cover patients in an ICU or perform procedures.

As the scope of hospitalist services continues to change over time, should there be concern for scope creep? It depends on how one might view the change. As health care becomes ever more complex, high-functioning HMGs are needed to navigate it, both within and beyond the hospital. Some might consider scope evolution to be a reflection of hospitalists being recognized for their ability to provide high-quality, efficient, and comprehensive care. Hospital medicine groups will likely continue to evolve to meet the needs of an ever-changing health care environment.

Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

SAN DIEGO – Palliative care among critically ill pediatric patients in the intensive care unit is highly variable across institutions, and is more common among older children, female children, and those with government insurance or at a high risk of mortality. The findings come from a retrospective analysis of data from 52 hospitals, which included ICU admissions (except neonatal ICU) during 2007-2018.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The good news is that palliative care consultations have increased, with consultations in less than 1% of cases at the start of the study and rising quickly to more than 7% in 2018.

“In the adult world, palliative care has expanded in recent decades, and I think now that it’s coming to the pediatric world, it’ll just continue to go up,” said Siobhan O’Keefe, MD, in an interview. Dr. O’Keefe is with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. She presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

More work needs to be done, she said. “We are not uniformly using palliative care for critically ill children in the U.S., and it varies across institutions. That’s probably not the ideal situation,” said Dr. O’Keefe. The study did not track palliative care versus the presence of board-certified palliative care physicians or palliative care fellowships, but she suspects they would correlate.

Dr. O’Keefe called for physicians to think beyond the patient, to family members and caregivers. “We need to focus on family outcomes, how they are taking care of children with moderate disability, and incorporate that into our outcomes,” she said. Previous research has shown family members to be at risk of anxiety, depression, unemployment, and financial distress.

SOURCE: O’Keefe S et al. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 418.

SAN DIEGO – Palliative care among critically ill pediatric patients in the intensive care unit is highly variable across institutions, and is more common among older children, female children, and those with government insurance or at a high risk of mortality. The findings come from a retrospective analysis of data from 52 hospitals, which included ICU admissions (except neonatal ICU) during 2007-2018.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The good news is that palliative care consultations have increased, with consultations in less than 1% of cases at the start of the study and rising quickly to more than 7% in 2018.

“In the adult world, palliative care has expanded in recent decades, and I think now that it’s coming to the pediatric world, it’ll just continue to go up,” said Siobhan O’Keefe, MD, in an interview. Dr. O’Keefe is with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. She presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

More work needs to be done, she said. “We are not uniformly using palliative care for critically ill children in the U.S., and it varies across institutions. That’s probably not the ideal situation,” said Dr. O’Keefe. The study did not track palliative care versus the presence of board-certified palliative care physicians or palliative care fellowships, but she suspects they would correlate.

Dr. O’Keefe called for physicians to think beyond the patient, to family members and caregivers. “We need to focus on family outcomes, how they are taking care of children with moderate disability, and incorporate that into our outcomes,” she said. Previous research has shown family members to be at risk of anxiety, depression, unemployment, and financial distress.

SOURCE: O’Keefe S et al. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 418.

SAN DIEGO – Palliative care among critically ill pediatric patients in the intensive care unit is highly variable across institutions, and is more common among older children, female children, and those with government insurance or at a high risk of mortality. The findings come from a retrospective analysis of data from 52 hospitals, which included ICU admissions (except neonatal ICU) during 2007-2018.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The good news is that palliative care consultations have increased, with consultations in less than 1% of cases at the start of the study and rising quickly to more than 7% in 2018.

“In the adult world, palliative care has expanded in recent decades, and I think now that it’s coming to the pediatric world, it’ll just continue to go up,” said Siobhan O’Keefe, MD, in an interview. Dr. O’Keefe is with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. She presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

More work needs to be done, she said. “We are not uniformly using palliative care for critically ill children in the U.S., and it varies across institutions. That’s probably not the ideal situation,” said Dr. O’Keefe. The study did not track palliative care versus the presence of board-certified palliative care physicians or palliative care fellowships, but she suspects they would correlate.

Dr. O’Keefe called for physicians to think beyond the patient, to family members and caregivers. “We need to focus on family outcomes, how they are taking care of children with moderate disability, and incorporate that into our outcomes,” she said. Previous research has shown family members to be at risk of anxiety, depression, unemployment, and financial distress.

SOURCE: O’Keefe S et al. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 418.

Managing patients with malignant pleural effusion can be challenging. Symptoms are often distressing, and its presence signifies advanced disease. Median survival after diagnosis is 4 to 9 months,^1–3 although prognosis varies considerably depending on the type and stage of the malignancy.

How patients are best managed depends on clinical circumstances. Physicians should consider the risks and benefits of each option while keeping in mind realistic goals of care.

This article uses brief case presentations to review management strategies for malignant pleural effusion.

CANCER IS A COMMON CAUSE OF PLEURAL EFFUSION

Physicians and surgeons, especially in tertiary care hospitals, must often manage malignant pleural effusion.⁴ Malignancy is the third leading cause of pleural effusion after heart failure and pneumonia, accounting for 44% to 77% of exudates.⁵ Although pleural effusion can arise secondary to many different malignancies, the most common causes are lung cancer in men and breast cancer in women; these cancers account for about 75% of all cases of malignant pleural effusion.^6,7

A WOMAN ON CHEMOTHERAPY WITH ASYMPTOMATIC PLEURAL EFFUSION

An 18-year-old woman with non-Hodgkin lymphoma has received her first cycle of chemotherapy and is now admitted to the hospital for diarrhea. A routine chest radiograph reveals a left-sided pleural effusion covering one-third of the thoracic cavity. She is asymptomatic and reports no shortness of breath at rest or with exertion. Her oxygen saturation level is above 92% on room air without supplemental oxygen.

Thoracentesis reveals an exudative effusion, and cytologic study shows malignant lymphoid cells, consistent with a malignant pleural effusion. Cultures are negative.

What is the appropriate next step to manage this patient’s effusion?

Observation is reasonable

This patient is experiencing no symptoms and has just begun chemotherapy for her lymphoma. Malignant pleural effusion associated with lymphoma, small-cell lung cancer, and breast cancer is most sensitive to chemotherapy.⁵ For patients who do not have symptoms from the pleural effusion and who are scheduled to receive further chemotherapy, a watch-and-wait approach is reasonable.

It is important to follow the patient for developing symptoms and obtain serial imaging to evaluate for an increase in the effusion size. We recommend repeat imaging at 2- to 4-week intervals, and sooner if symptoms develop.

If progression is evident or if the patient’s oncologist indicates that the cancer is unresponsive to systemic therapy, further intervention may be necessary with one of the options discussed below.

A MAN WITH LUNG CANCER WITH PLEURAL EFFUSION, LUNG COLLAPSE

A 42-year-old man with a history of lung cancer is admitted for worsening shortness of breath. Chest radiography reveals a large left-sided pleural effusion with complete collapse of the left lung and contralateral shift of midline structures (Figure 1). Large-volume thoracentesis improves his symptoms. Pleural fluid cytology is positive for malignant cells. A repeat chest radiograph shows incomplete expansion of the left lung, thick pleura, and pneumothorax, indicating a trapped lung (ie, one unable to expand fully). Two weeks later, his symptoms recur, and chest radiography reveals a recurrent effusion.

How should this effusion be managed?

Indwelling pleural catheter placement

In a retrospective cohort study,⁸ malignant pleural effusion recurred in 97% of patients within 1 month (mean, 4.2 days) of therapeutic aspiration, highlighting the need for definitive treatment.

In the absence of lung expansion, pleuro­desis is rarely successful, and placing an indwelling pleural catheter in symptomatic patients is the preferred strategy. The US Food and Drug Administration approved this use in 1997.⁹

Indwelling pleural catheters are narrow (15.5 French, or about 5 mm in diameter) and soft (made of silicone), with distal fenestrations. The distal end remains positioned in the pleural cavity to enable drainage of pleural fluid. The middle portion passes through subcutaneous tissue, where a polyester cuff prevents dislodgement and infection. The proximal end of the catheter remains outside the patient’s skin and is connected to a 1-way valve that prevents air or fluid flow into the pleural cavity.

Pleural fluid is typically drained every 2 or 3 days for palliation. Patients must be educated about home drainage and proper catheter care.

 

 

Indwelling pleural catheters are now initial therapy for many

Although indwelling pleural catheters were first used for patients who were not candidates for pleurodesis, they are now increasingly used as first-line therapy.

Since these devices were introduced, several clinical series including more than 800 patients have found that their use for malignant pleural infusion led to symptomatic improvement in 89% to 100% of cases, with 90% of patients needing no subsequent pleural procedures after catheter insertion.^10–13

Davies et al¹⁴ randomized 106 patients with malignant pleural effusion to either receive an indwelling pleural catheter or undergo pleurodesis. In the first 6 weeks, the 2 groups had about the same incidence of dyspnea, but the catheter group had less dyspnea at 6 months, shorter index hospitalization (0 vs 4 days), fewer hospital days in the first year for treatment-related complications (1 vs 4.5 days), and fewer patients needing follow-up pleural procedures (6% vs 22%). On the other hand, adverse events were more frequent in the indwelling pleural catheter group (40% vs 13%). The most frequent events were pleural infection, cellulitis, and catheter blockage.

Fysh et al¹⁵ also compared indwelling pleural catheter insertion and pleurodesis (based on patient choice) in patients with malignant pleural effusion. As in the previous trial, those who received a catheter required significantly fewer days in the hospital and fewer additional pleural procedures than those who received pleurodesis. Safety profiles and symptom control were comparable.

Indwelling pleural catheters have several other advantages. They have been found to be more cost-effective than talc pleurodesis in patients not expected to live long (survival < 14 weeks).¹⁶ Patients with an indwelling pleural catheter can receive chemotherapy, and concurrent treatment does not increase risk of infection.¹⁷ And a systematic review¹⁸ found a 46% rate of autopleurodesis at a median of 52 days after insertion of an indwelling pleural catheter.

Drainage rate may need to be moderated

Chest pain has been reported with the use of indwelling pleural catheters, related to rapid drainage of the effusion in the setting of failed reexpansion of the trapped lung due to thickened pleura. Drainage schedules may need to be adjusted, with more frequent draining of smaller volumes, to control dyspnea without causing significant pain.

A WOMAN WITH RECURRENT PLEURAL EFFUSION, GOOD PROGNOSIS

A 55-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer presents with shortness of breath. Chest radiography reveals a right-sided effusion, which on thoracentesis is found to be malignant. After fluid removal, repeat chest radiography shows complete lung expansion.

One month later, she returns with symptoms and recurrence of the effusion. Ultrasonography does not reveal any adhesions in the pleural space. Her oncologist informs you that her expected survival is in years.

What is the next step?

Chemical pleurodesis

Chemical pleurodesis involves introducing a sclerosant into the pleural space to provoke an intense inflammatory response, creating adhesions and fibrosis that will obliterate the space. The sclerosing agent (typically talc) can be delivered by tube thoracostomy, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), or medical pleuroscopy. Although the latter 2 methods allow direct visualization of the pleural space and, in theory, a more even distribution of the sclerosing agent, current evidence does not favor 1 option over the other,¹⁹ and practice patterns vary between institutions.

Tube thoracostomy. Typically, the sclerosing agent is administered once a chest radiograph shows lung reexpansion, and tube output of pleural fluid is less than 150 mL/day.¹⁹ However, some studies indicate that if pleural apposition can be confirmed using ultrasonography, then sclerosant administration at that time leads to optimal pleurodesis efficacy and shorter hospitalization.^20,21

VATS is usually done in the operating room with the patient under general anesthesia. A double-lumen endotracheal tube allows for single-lung ventilation; a camera is then inserted into the pleural space of the collapsed lung. Multiple ports of entry are usually employed, and the entire pleural space can be visualized and the sclerosing agent instilled uniformly. The surgeon may alternatively choose to perform mechanical pleurodesis, which entails abrading the visceral and parietal pleura with dry gauze to provoke diffuse petechial hemorrhage and an inflammatory reaction. VATS can also be used to perform biopsy, lobectomy, and pneumonectomy.

Medical pleuroscopy. Medical pleuroscopy is usually done using local anesthesia with the patient awake, moderately sedated, and not intubated. Because no double-lumen endotracheal tube is used, lung collapse may not be complete, making it difficult to completely visualize the entire pleural surfaces.

Although no randomized study of VATS vs medical pleuroscopy exists, a retrospective case-matched study²² comparing VATS (under general anesthesia) to single-port VATS (under local anesthesia) noted equivalent rates of pleurodesis. However, the local anesthesia group had a lower perioperative mortality rate (0% vs 2.3%), a lower postoperative major morbidity rate (5.2% vs 9%), earlier improvement in quality of life, and shorter hospitalization (3 vs 5 days).²² In general, the diagnostic sensitivity of pleuroscopy for pleural malignancy is similar to that of VATS (93% vs 97%).^23,24

A MAN WITH PLEURAL EFFUSION AND A POOR PROGNOSIS

A 60-year-old man with metastatic pancreatic cancer is brought to the clinic for worsening shortness of breath over the past 2 months. During that time, he has lost 6 kg and has become bedridden.

On examination, he has severe cachexia and is significantly short of breath at rest with associated hypoxia. His oncologist expects him to survive less than 3 months.

His laboratory investigations reveal hypoalbuminemia and leukocytosis. A chest radiograph shows a large left-sided pleural effusion that was not present 2 months ago.

What should be done for him?

Thoracentesis, repeat as needed

Malignant pleural effusion causing dyspnea is not uncommon in certain advanced malignancies and may contribute to significant suffering at the end of life. A study of 298 patients with malignant pleural effusion noted that the presence of leukocytosis, hypoalbuminemia, and hypoxemia was associated with a poorer prognosis. Patients having all 3 factors had a median survival of 42 days.²⁵

Thoracentesis, the least invasive option that may improve dyspnea, can be done in the clinic setting and is a reasonable strategy for patients with advanced cancer and an expected survival of less than 3 months.²⁶ Although recurrence is expected, it may take up to a few weeks, and repeat thoracentesis can be performed as needed.

Managing patients with malignant pleural effusion can be challenging. Symptoms are often distressing, and its presence signifies advanced disease. Median survival after diagnosis is 4 to 9 months,^1–3 although prognosis varies considerably depending on the type and stage of the malignancy.

How patients are best managed depends on clinical circumstances. Physicians should consider the risks and benefits of each option while keeping in mind realistic goals of care.

This article uses brief case presentations to review management strategies for malignant pleural effusion.

CANCER IS A COMMON CAUSE OF PLEURAL EFFUSION

Physicians and surgeons, especially in tertiary care hospitals, must often manage malignant pleural effusion.⁴ Malignancy is the third leading cause of pleural effusion after heart failure and pneumonia, accounting for 44% to 77% of exudates.⁵ Although pleural effusion can arise secondary to many different malignancies, the most common causes are lung cancer in men and breast cancer in women; these cancers account for about 75% of all cases of malignant pleural effusion.^6,7

A WOMAN ON CHEMOTHERAPY WITH ASYMPTOMATIC PLEURAL EFFUSION

An 18-year-old woman with non-Hodgkin lymphoma has received her first cycle of chemotherapy and is now admitted to the hospital for diarrhea. A routine chest radiograph reveals a left-sided pleural effusion covering one-third of the thoracic cavity. She is asymptomatic and reports no shortness of breath at rest or with exertion. Her oxygen saturation level is above 92% on room air without supplemental oxygen.

Thoracentesis reveals an exudative effusion, and cytologic study shows malignant lymphoid cells, consistent with a malignant pleural effusion. Cultures are negative.

What is the appropriate next step to manage this patient’s effusion?

Observation is reasonable

This patient is experiencing no symptoms and has just begun chemotherapy for her lymphoma. Malignant pleural effusion associated with lymphoma, small-cell lung cancer, and breast cancer is most sensitive to chemotherapy.⁵ For patients who do not have symptoms from the pleural effusion and who are scheduled to receive further chemotherapy, a watch-and-wait approach is reasonable.

It is important to follow the patient for developing symptoms and obtain serial imaging to evaluate for an increase in the effusion size. We recommend repeat imaging at 2- to 4-week intervals, and sooner if symptoms develop.

If progression is evident or if the patient’s oncologist indicates that the cancer is unresponsive to systemic therapy, further intervention may be necessary with one of the options discussed below.

A MAN WITH LUNG CANCER WITH PLEURAL EFFUSION, LUNG COLLAPSE

A 42-year-old man with a history of lung cancer is admitted for worsening shortness of breath. Chest radiography reveals a large left-sided pleural effusion with complete collapse of the left lung and contralateral shift of midline structures (Figure 1). Large-volume thoracentesis improves his symptoms. Pleural fluid cytology is positive for malignant cells. A repeat chest radiograph shows incomplete expansion of the left lung, thick pleura, and pneumothorax, indicating a trapped lung (ie, one unable to expand fully). Two weeks later, his symptoms recur, and chest radiography reveals a recurrent effusion.

How should this effusion be managed?

Indwelling pleural catheter placement

In a retrospective cohort study,⁸ malignant pleural effusion recurred in 97% of patients within 1 month (mean, 4.2 days) of therapeutic aspiration, highlighting the need for definitive treatment.

In the absence of lung expansion, pleuro­desis is rarely successful, and placing an indwelling pleural catheter in symptomatic patients is the preferred strategy. The US Food and Drug Administration approved this use in 1997.⁹

Indwelling pleural catheters are narrow (15.5 French, or about 5 mm in diameter) and soft (made of silicone), with distal fenestrations. The distal end remains positioned in the pleural cavity to enable drainage of pleural fluid. The middle portion passes through subcutaneous tissue, where a polyester cuff prevents dislodgement and infection. The proximal end of the catheter remains outside the patient’s skin and is connected to a 1-way valve that prevents air or fluid flow into the pleural cavity.

Pleural fluid is typically drained every 2 or 3 days for palliation. Patients must be educated about home drainage and proper catheter care.

 

 

Indwelling pleural catheters are now initial therapy for many

Although indwelling pleural catheters were first used for patients who were not candidates for pleurodesis, they are now increasingly used as first-line therapy.

Since these devices were introduced, several clinical series including more than 800 patients have found that their use for malignant pleural infusion led to symptomatic improvement in 89% to 100% of cases, with 90% of patients needing no subsequent pleural procedures after catheter insertion.^10–13

Davies et al¹⁴ randomized 106 patients with malignant pleural effusion to either receive an indwelling pleural catheter or undergo pleurodesis. In the first 6 weeks, the 2 groups had about the same incidence of dyspnea, but the catheter group had less dyspnea at 6 months, shorter index hospitalization (0 vs 4 days), fewer hospital days in the first year for treatment-related complications (1 vs 4.5 days), and fewer patients needing follow-up pleural procedures (6% vs 22%). On the other hand, adverse events were more frequent in the indwelling pleural catheter group (40% vs 13%). The most frequent events were pleural infection, cellulitis, and catheter blockage.

Fysh et al¹⁵ also compared indwelling pleural catheter insertion and pleurodesis (based on patient choice) in patients with malignant pleural effusion. As in the previous trial, those who received a catheter required significantly fewer days in the hospital and fewer additional pleural procedures than those who received pleurodesis. Safety profiles and symptom control were comparable.

Indwelling pleural catheters have several other advantages. They have been found to be more cost-effective than talc pleurodesis in patients not expected to live long (survival < 14 weeks).¹⁶ Patients with an indwelling pleural catheter can receive chemotherapy, and concurrent treatment does not increase risk of infection.¹⁷ And a systematic review¹⁸ found a 46% rate of autopleurodesis at a median of 52 days after insertion of an indwelling pleural catheter.

Drainage rate may need to be moderated

Chest pain has been reported with the use of indwelling pleural catheters, related to rapid drainage of the effusion in the setting of failed reexpansion of the trapped lung due to thickened pleura. Drainage schedules may need to be adjusted, with more frequent draining of smaller volumes, to control dyspnea without causing significant pain.

A WOMAN WITH RECURRENT PLEURAL EFFUSION, GOOD PROGNOSIS

A 55-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer presents with shortness of breath. Chest radiography reveals a right-sided effusion, which on thoracentesis is found to be malignant. After fluid removal, repeat chest radiography shows complete lung expansion.

One month later, she returns with symptoms and recurrence of the effusion. Ultrasonography does not reveal any adhesions in the pleural space. Her oncologist informs you that her expected survival is in years.

What is the next step?

Chemical pleurodesis

Chemical pleurodesis involves introducing a sclerosant into the pleural space to provoke an intense inflammatory response, creating adhesions and fibrosis that will obliterate the space. The sclerosing agent (typically talc) can be delivered by tube thoracostomy, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), or medical pleuroscopy. Although the latter 2 methods allow direct visualization of the pleural space and, in theory, a more even distribution of the sclerosing agent, current evidence does not favor 1 option over the other,¹⁹ and practice patterns vary between institutions.

Tube thoracostomy. Typically, the sclerosing agent is administered once a chest radiograph shows lung reexpansion, and tube output of pleural fluid is less than 150 mL/day.¹⁹ However, some studies indicate that if pleural apposition can be confirmed using ultrasonography, then sclerosant administration at that time leads to optimal pleurodesis efficacy and shorter hospitalization.^20,21

VATS is usually done in the operating room with the patient under general anesthesia. A double-lumen endotracheal tube allows for single-lung ventilation; a camera is then inserted into the pleural space of the collapsed lung. Multiple ports of entry are usually employed, and the entire pleural space can be visualized and the sclerosing agent instilled uniformly. The surgeon may alternatively choose to perform mechanical pleurodesis, which entails abrading the visceral and parietal pleura with dry gauze to provoke diffuse petechial hemorrhage and an inflammatory reaction. VATS can also be used to perform biopsy, lobectomy, and pneumonectomy.

Medical pleuroscopy. Medical pleuroscopy is usually done using local anesthesia with the patient awake, moderately sedated, and not intubated. Because no double-lumen endotracheal tube is used, lung collapse may not be complete, making it difficult to completely visualize the entire pleural surfaces.

Although no randomized study of VATS vs medical pleuroscopy exists, a retrospective case-matched study²² comparing VATS (under general anesthesia) to single-port VATS (under local anesthesia) noted equivalent rates of pleurodesis. However, the local anesthesia group had a lower perioperative mortality rate (0% vs 2.3%), a lower postoperative major morbidity rate (5.2% vs 9%), earlier improvement in quality of life, and shorter hospitalization (3 vs 5 days).²² In general, the diagnostic sensitivity of pleuroscopy for pleural malignancy is similar to that of VATS (93% vs 97%).^23,24

A MAN WITH PLEURAL EFFUSION AND A POOR PROGNOSIS

A 60-year-old man with metastatic pancreatic cancer is brought to the clinic for worsening shortness of breath over the past 2 months. During that time, he has lost 6 kg and has become bedridden.

On examination, he has severe cachexia and is significantly short of breath at rest with associated hypoxia. His oncologist expects him to survive less than 3 months.

His laboratory investigations reveal hypoalbuminemia and leukocytosis. A chest radiograph shows a large left-sided pleural effusion that was not present 2 months ago.

What should be done for him?

Thoracentesis, repeat as needed

Malignant pleural effusion causing dyspnea is not uncommon in certain advanced malignancies and may contribute to significant suffering at the end of life. A study of 298 patients with malignant pleural effusion noted that the presence of leukocytosis, hypoalbuminemia, and hypoxemia was associated with a poorer prognosis. Patients having all 3 factors had a median survival of 42 days.²⁵

Thoracentesis, the least invasive option that may improve dyspnea, can be done in the clinic setting and is a reasonable strategy for patients with advanced cancer and an expected survival of less than 3 months.²⁶ Although recurrence is expected, it may take up to a few weeks, and repeat thoracentesis can be performed as needed.

Managing patients with malignant pleural effusion can be challenging. Symptoms are often distressing, and its presence signifies advanced disease. Median survival after diagnosis is 4 to 9 months,^1–3 although prognosis varies considerably depending on the type and stage of the malignancy.

How patients are best managed depends on clinical circumstances. Physicians should consider the risks and benefits of each option while keeping in mind realistic goals of care.

This article uses brief case presentations to review management strategies for malignant pleural effusion.

CANCER IS A COMMON CAUSE OF PLEURAL EFFUSION

Physicians and surgeons, especially in tertiary care hospitals, must often manage malignant pleural effusion.⁴ Malignancy is the third leading cause of pleural effusion after heart failure and pneumonia, accounting for 44% to 77% of exudates.⁵ Although pleural effusion can arise secondary to many different malignancies, the most common causes are lung cancer in men and breast cancer in women; these cancers account for about 75% of all cases of malignant pleural effusion.^6,7

A WOMAN ON CHEMOTHERAPY WITH ASYMPTOMATIC PLEURAL EFFUSION

An 18-year-old woman with non-Hodgkin lymphoma has received her first cycle of chemotherapy and is now admitted to the hospital for diarrhea. A routine chest radiograph reveals a left-sided pleural effusion covering one-third of the thoracic cavity. She is asymptomatic and reports no shortness of breath at rest or with exertion. Her oxygen saturation level is above 92% on room air without supplemental oxygen.

Thoracentesis reveals an exudative effusion, and cytologic study shows malignant lymphoid cells, consistent with a malignant pleural effusion. Cultures are negative.

What is the appropriate next step to manage this patient’s effusion?

Observation is reasonable

This patient is experiencing no symptoms and has just begun chemotherapy for her lymphoma. Malignant pleural effusion associated with lymphoma, small-cell lung cancer, and breast cancer is most sensitive to chemotherapy.⁵ For patients who do not have symptoms from the pleural effusion and who are scheduled to receive further chemotherapy, a watch-and-wait approach is reasonable.

It is important to follow the patient for developing symptoms and obtain serial imaging to evaluate for an increase in the effusion size. We recommend repeat imaging at 2- to 4-week intervals, and sooner if symptoms develop.

If progression is evident or if the patient’s oncologist indicates that the cancer is unresponsive to systemic therapy, further intervention may be necessary with one of the options discussed below.

A MAN WITH LUNG CANCER WITH PLEURAL EFFUSION, LUNG COLLAPSE

A 42-year-old man with a history of lung cancer is admitted for worsening shortness of breath. Chest radiography reveals a large left-sided pleural effusion with complete collapse of the left lung and contralateral shift of midline structures (Figure 1). Large-volume thoracentesis improves his symptoms. Pleural fluid cytology is positive for malignant cells. A repeat chest radiograph shows incomplete expansion of the left lung, thick pleura, and pneumothorax, indicating a trapped lung (ie, one unable to expand fully). Two weeks later, his symptoms recur, and chest radiography reveals a recurrent effusion.

How should this effusion be managed?

Indwelling pleural catheter placement

In a retrospective cohort study,⁸ malignant pleural effusion recurred in 97% of patients within 1 month (mean, 4.2 days) of therapeutic aspiration, highlighting the need for definitive treatment.

In the absence of lung expansion, pleuro­desis is rarely successful, and placing an indwelling pleural catheter in symptomatic patients is the preferred strategy. The US Food and Drug Administration approved this use in 1997.⁹

Indwelling pleural catheters are narrow (15.5 French, or about 5 mm in diameter) and soft (made of silicone), with distal fenestrations. The distal end remains positioned in the pleural cavity to enable drainage of pleural fluid. The middle portion passes through subcutaneous tissue, where a polyester cuff prevents dislodgement and infection. The proximal end of the catheter remains outside the patient’s skin and is connected to a 1-way valve that prevents air or fluid flow into the pleural cavity.

Pleural fluid is typically drained every 2 or 3 days for palliation. Patients must be educated about home drainage and proper catheter care.

 

 

Indwelling pleural catheters are now initial therapy for many

Although indwelling pleural catheters were first used for patients who were not candidates for pleurodesis, they are now increasingly used as first-line therapy.

Since these devices were introduced, several clinical series including more than 800 patients have found that their use for malignant pleural infusion led to symptomatic improvement in 89% to 100% of cases, with 90% of patients needing no subsequent pleural procedures after catheter insertion.^10–13

Davies et al¹⁴ randomized 106 patients with malignant pleural effusion to either receive an indwelling pleural catheter or undergo pleurodesis. In the first 6 weeks, the 2 groups had about the same incidence of dyspnea, but the catheter group had less dyspnea at 6 months, shorter index hospitalization (0 vs 4 days), fewer hospital days in the first year for treatment-related complications (1 vs 4.5 days), and fewer patients needing follow-up pleural procedures (6% vs 22%). On the other hand, adverse events were more frequent in the indwelling pleural catheter group (40% vs 13%). The most frequent events were pleural infection, cellulitis, and catheter blockage.

Fysh et al¹⁵ also compared indwelling pleural catheter insertion and pleurodesis (based on patient choice) in patients with malignant pleural effusion. As in the previous trial, those who received a catheter required significantly fewer days in the hospital and fewer additional pleural procedures than those who received pleurodesis. Safety profiles and symptom control were comparable.

Indwelling pleural catheters have several other advantages. They have been found to be more cost-effective than talc pleurodesis in patients not expected to live long (survival < 14 weeks).¹⁶ Patients with an indwelling pleural catheter can receive chemotherapy, and concurrent treatment does not increase risk of infection.¹⁷ And a systematic review¹⁸ found a 46% rate of autopleurodesis at a median of 52 days after insertion of an indwelling pleural catheter.

Drainage rate may need to be moderated

Chest pain has been reported with the use of indwelling pleural catheters, related to rapid drainage of the effusion in the setting of failed reexpansion of the trapped lung due to thickened pleura. Drainage schedules may need to be adjusted, with more frequent draining of smaller volumes, to control dyspnea without causing significant pain.

A WOMAN WITH RECURRENT PLEURAL EFFUSION, GOOD PROGNOSIS

A 55-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer presents with shortness of breath. Chest radiography reveals a right-sided effusion, which on thoracentesis is found to be malignant. After fluid removal, repeat chest radiography shows complete lung expansion.

One month later, she returns with symptoms and recurrence of the effusion. Ultrasonography does not reveal any adhesions in the pleural space. Her oncologist informs you that her expected survival is in years.

What is the next step?

Chemical pleurodesis

Chemical pleurodesis involves introducing a sclerosant into the pleural space to provoke an intense inflammatory response, creating adhesions and fibrosis that will obliterate the space. The sclerosing agent (typically talc) can be delivered by tube thoracostomy, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), or medical pleuroscopy. Although the latter 2 methods allow direct visualization of the pleural space and, in theory, a more even distribution of the sclerosing agent, current evidence does not favor 1 option over the other,¹⁹ and practice patterns vary between institutions.

Tube thoracostomy. Typically, the sclerosing agent is administered once a chest radiograph shows lung reexpansion, and tube output of pleural fluid is less than 150 mL/day.¹⁹ However, some studies indicate that if pleural apposition can be confirmed using ultrasonography, then sclerosant administration at that time leads to optimal pleurodesis efficacy and shorter hospitalization.^20,21

VATS is usually done in the operating room with the patient under general anesthesia. A double-lumen endotracheal tube allows for single-lung ventilation; a camera is then inserted into the pleural space of the collapsed lung. Multiple ports of entry are usually employed, and the entire pleural space can be visualized and the sclerosing agent instilled uniformly. The surgeon may alternatively choose to perform mechanical pleurodesis, which entails abrading the visceral and parietal pleura with dry gauze to provoke diffuse petechial hemorrhage and an inflammatory reaction. VATS can also be used to perform biopsy, lobectomy, and pneumonectomy.

Medical pleuroscopy. Medical pleuroscopy is usually done using local anesthesia with the patient awake, moderately sedated, and not intubated. Because no double-lumen endotracheal tube is used, lung collapse may not be complete, making it difficult to completely visualize the entire pleural surfaces.

Although no randomized study of VATS vs medical pleuroscopy exists, a retrospective case-matched study²² comparing VATS (under general anesthesia) to single-port VATS (under local anesthesia) noted equivalent rates of pleurodesis. However, the local anesthesia group had a lower perioperative mortality rate (0% vs 2.3%), a lower postoperative major morbidity rate (5.2% vs 9%), earlier improvement in quality of life, and shorter hospitalization (3 vs 5 days).²² In general, the diagnostic sensitivity of pleuroscopy for pleural malignancy is similar to that of VATS (93% vs 97%).^23,24

A MAN WITH PLEURAL EFFUSION AND A POOR PROGNOSIS

A 60-year-old man with metastatic pancreatic cancer is brought to the clinic for worsening shortness of breath over the past 2 months. During that time, he has lost 6 kg and has become bedridden.

On examination, he has severe cachexia and is significantly short of breath at rest with associated hypoxia. His oncologist expects him to survive less than 3 months.

His laboratory investigations reveal hypoalbuminemia and leukocytosis. A chest radiograph shows a large left-sided pleural effusion that was not present 2 months ago.

What should be done for him?

Thoracentesis, repeat as needed

Malignant pleural effusion causing dyspnea is not uncommon in certain advanced malignancies and may contribute to significant suffering at the end of life. A study of 298 patients with malignant pleural effusion noted that the presence of leukocytosis, hypoalbuminemia, and hypoxemia was associated with a poorer prognosis. Patients having all 3 factors had a median survival of 42 days.²⁵

Thoracentesis, the least invasive option that may improve dyspnea, can be done in the clinic setting and is a reasonable strategy for patients with advanced cancer and an expected survival of less than 3 months.²⁶ Although recurrence is expected, it may take up to a few weeks, and repeat thoracentesis can be performed as needed.

Children in military families face unique challenges that other children do not face. Knee pathologies predict accelerated knee osteoarthritis, patients with a poor-prognosis cancer have a higher risk of suicide in the first year, and Nuedexta is mainly being prescribed for dementia and Parkinson’s.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Children in military families face unique challenges that other children do not face. Knee pathologies predict accelerated knee osteoarthritis, patients with a poor-prognosis cancer have a higher risk of suicide in the first year, and Nuedexta is mainly being prescribed for dementia and Parkinson’s.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Children in military families face unique challenges that other children do not face. Knee pathologies predict accelerated knee osteoarthritis, patients with a poor-prognosis cancer have a higher risk of suicide in the first year, and Nuedexta is mainly being prescribed for dementia and Parkinson’s.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify