Postoperative intensive care unit stay after minimally invasive esophagectomy shows large hospital variation. Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

Risk factors for unplanned intensive care unit admission after esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 628 patients with esophageal cancer

Introduction

Esophagectomy patients who experience unplanned ICU admission (UIA) may experience a heavier economic burden and worse clinical outcomes than those who experience routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for postoperative UIA in patients who underwent esophagectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively included patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy. The characteristics of postoperative UIA were described, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed based on the logistic regression model. Furthermore, a recursive partitioning analysis was adopted to stratify the patients according to the risk of UIA.

Results

A total of 628 patients were included in our final analysis, among whom 57 (9.1%) had an UIA. The patients in the UIA cohort had a higher rate of in-hospital mortality (P<0.001), longer hospital stay (P<0.001), and higher associated costs (P<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that hybrid/open esophagectomy (OR=4.366, 95% CI=2.142 to 8.897, P<0.001), operation time (OR=1.006, 95% CI=1.002 to 1.011, P=0.007), intraoperative blood transfusion (OR=3.118, 95% CI=1.249 to 7.784, P=0.015) and the prognostic nutrition index (PNI) (OR=0.779, 95% CI=0.724 to 0.838, P<0.001) were independently associated with UIA.

Conclusions

We identified several critical independent perioperative risk factors that may increase the risk of UIA following esophagectomy, and the above risk factors should be the focus of attention to reduce the incidence of postoperative UIA.

Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Radical esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer is a major surgical intervention, associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. The introduction of robotic surgical platforms in esophagectomy may enhance advantages of minimally invasive surgery enabled by laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, including reduced postoperative pain and pulmonary complications. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical and oncological benefits of robot-assisted esophagectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane databases was performed for studies published up to 1 August 2023. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022370983). Clinical and oncological outcomes data were extracted following full-text review of eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 113 studies (n = 14,701 patients, n = 2455 female) were included. The majority of the studies were retrospective in nature (n = 89, 79%), and cohort studies were the most common type of study design (n = 88, 79%). The median number of patients per study was 54. Sixty-three studies reported using a robotic surgical platform for both the abdominal and thoracic phases of the procedure. The weighted mean incidence of postoperative pneumonia was 11%, anastomotic leak 10%, total length of hospitalisation 15.2 days, and a resection margin clear of the tumour was achieved in 95% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

There are numerous reported advantages of robot-assisted surgery for resectable esophageal cancer. A correlation between procedural volume and improvements in outcomes with robotic esophagectomy has also been identified. Multicentre comparative clinical studies are essential to identify the true objective benefit on outcomes compared with conventional surgical approaches before robotic surgery is accepted as standard of practice.

Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer has a complication rate of up to 60%. Prediction models could be helpful to preoperatively estimate which patients are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to determine the best prediction models for morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy and to identify commonalities among the models.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , study ID CRD42022350846). Pubmed, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection were searched for studies published between 2010 and August 2022. The Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Extracted data were tabulated and a narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 15,011 articles identified, 22 studies were included using data from tens of thousands of patients. This systematic review included 33 different models, of which 18 models were newly developed. Many studies showed a high risk of bias. The prognostic accuracy of models differed between 0.51 and 0.85. For most models, variables are readily available. Two models for mortality and one model for pulmonary complications have the potential to be developed further.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of rigorous prediction models is limited. Several models are promising but need to be further developed. Some models provide information about risk factors for the development of complications. Performance status is a potential modifiable risk factor. None are ready for clinical implementation.

Identification of complications requiring interventions after gastrointestinal cancer surgery from real-world data: An external validation study

Background

Recently, real-world data have been recognized to have a significant role for research and quality improvement worldwide. The decision on the existence or nonexistence of postoperative complications is complex in clinical practice. This multicenter validation study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of identification of patients who underwent gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery and extraction of postoperative complications from Japanese administrative claims data.

Methods

We compared data extracted from both the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) and chart review of patients who underwent GI cancer surgery from April 2016 to March 2019. Using data of 658 patients at Kyoto University Hospital, we developed algorithms for the extraction of patients and postoperative complications requiring interventions, which included an invasive procedure, reoperation, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, intensive care unit management, and in-hospital mortality. The accuracy of the algorithms was externally validated using the data of 1708 patients at two other hospitals.

Results

In the overall validation set, 1694 of 1708 eligible patients were correctly extracted by DPC (sensitivity 0.992 and positive predictive value 0.992). All postoperative complications requiring interventions had a sensitivity of >0.798 and a specificity of almost 1.000. The overall sensitivity and specificity of Clavien-Dindo ≥grade IIIb complications was 1.000 and 0.995, respectively.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing GI cancer surgery and postoperative complications requiring interventions can be accurately identified using the real-world data. This multicenter external validation study may contribute to future research on hospital quality improvement or to a large-scale comparison study among nationwide hospitals using real-world data.

Combined and intraoperative risk modelling for oesophagectomy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common malignancy worldwide and is associated with a poor prognosis. Oesophagectomy remains the best prospect for a cure if diagnosed in the early disease stages. However, the procedure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is undertaken only after careful consideration. Appropriate patient selection, counselling and resource allocation is essential. Numerous risk models have been devised to guide surgeons in making these decisions.

AIM

To evaluate which multivariate risk models, using intraoperative information with or without preoperative information, best predict perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was undertaken from 2000-2020. The search terms used were [(Oesophagectomy) AND (Model OR Predict OR Risk OR score) AND (Mortality OR morbidity OR complications OR outcomes OR anastomotic leak OR length of stay)]. Articles were included if they assessed multivariate based tools incorporating preoperative and intraoperative variables to forecast patient outcomes after oesophagectomy. Articles were excluded if they only required preoperative or any post-operative data. Studies appraising univariate risk predictors such as preoperative sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary fitness and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were also excluded. The review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses model. All captured risk models were appraised for clinical credibility, methodological quality, performance, validation and clinical effectiveness.

RESULTS

Twenty published studies were identified which examined eleven multivariate risk models. Eight of these combined preoperative and intraoperative data and the remaining three used only intraoperative values. Only two risk models were identified as promising in predicting mortality, namely the Portsmouth physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) and POSSUM scores. A further two studies, the intraoperative factors and Esophagectomy surgical Apgar score based nomograms, adequately forecasted major morbidity. The latter two models are yet to have external validation and none have been tested for clinical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Despite the presence of some promising models in forecasting perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes, there is more research required to externally validate these models and demonstrate clinical benefit with the adoption of these models guiding postoperative care and allocating resources.

Learning curve for adoption of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review of oncological, clinical, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is gaining increasing popularity as an operative approach. Learning curves to achieve surgical competency in robotic-assisted techniques have shown significant variation in learning curve lengths and outcomes. This study aimed to summarize the current literature on learning curves for RAMIE.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched, and articles reporting on learning curves in RAMIE were identified and scrutinized. Studies were eligible if they reported changes in operative outcomes over time, or learning curves, for surgeons newly adopting RAMIE.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reporting on 1767 patients were included. Nine studies reported on surgeons with prior experience of robot-assisted surgery prior to adopting RAMIE, with only four studies outlining a specified RAMIE adoption pathway. Learning curves were most commonly analyzed using cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) and were typically reported for lymph node yields and operative times, with significant variation in learning curve lengths (18-73 cases and 20-80 cases, respectively). Most studies reported adoption without significant impact on clinical outcomes such as anastomotic leak; significant learning curves were more likely in studies, which did not report a formal learning or adoption pathway.

CONCLUSION

Reported RAMIE adoption phases are variable, with some authors suggesting significant impact to patients. With robust training through formal programmes or proctorship, however, others report RAMIE adoption without impact on clinical outcomes. A formalized adoption curriculum appears critical to prevent adverse effects on operative efficiency and patient care.

C-reactive protein as a non-linear predictor of prolonged length of intensive care unit stay after gastrointestinal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The relationship between C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LoS) has not been well defined.

AIM

To explore the association between CRP levels at ICU admission and prolonged ICU LoS in gastrointestinal cancer (GC) patients after major surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed to quantify serum CRP levels and to establish their association with prolonged ICU LoS (≥ 72 h) in GC patients admitted to the ICU. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted, and restricted cubic spline curves with four knots (5%, 35%, 65%, 95%) were used to explore non-linearity assumptions.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients were enrolled. Among them, 83 (20.3%) patients had an ICU LoS longer than 72 h. CRP levels were independently associated with the risk of prolonged ICU LoS [odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–2.17]. Restricted cubic spline analysis revealed a non-linear relationship between CRP levels and OR for the prolonged ICU LoS (P = 0.035 for non-linearity). After the cut-off of 2.6 (log transformed mg/L), the OR for prolonged ICU LoS significantly increased with CRP levels. The adjusted regression coefficient was 0.70 (95%CI 0.31–1.57, P = 0.384) for CRP levels less than 2.6, whereas it was 2.43 (95%CI 1.39–4.24, P = 0.002) for CRP levels higher than 2.6.

CONCLUSION

Among the GC patients, CRP levels at ICU admission were non-linearly associated with prolonged ICU LoS in survivors. An admission CRP level > 2.6 (log transformed mg/L) was associated with increased risk of prolonged ICU LoS.

Parsimonious machine learning models to predict resource use in cardiac surgery across a statewide collaborative

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Surgical Therapy of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Current Standards and Future Perspectives

Transthoracic esophagectomy is currently the predominant curative treatment option for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. The majority of carcinomas present as locally advanced tumors requiring multimodal strategies with either neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy alone. Minimally invasive, including robotic, techniques are increasingly applied with a broad spectrum of technical variations existing for the oncological resection as well as gastric reconstruction. At the present, intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy is the preferred technique of reconstruction (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). With standardized surgical procedures, a complete resection of the primary tumor can be achieved in almost 95% of patients. Even in expert centers, postoperative morbidity remains high, with an overall complication rate of 50-60%, whereas 30- and 90-day mortality are reported to be <2% and <6%, respectively. Due to the complexity of transthoracic esophagetomy and its associated morbidity, esophageal surgery is recommended to be performed in specialized centers with an appropriate caseload yet to be defined. In order to reduce postoperative morbidity, the selection of patients, preoperative rehabilitation and postoperative fast-track concepts are feasible strategies of perioperative management. Future directives aim to further centralize esophageal services, to individualize surgical treatment for high-risk patients and to implement intraoperative imaging modalities modifying the oncological extent of resection and facilitating surgical reconstruction.

Minimally Invasive Oncologic Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery can be Performed Safely on all Weekdays: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

Existing literature suggests deteriorating surgical outcome of esophagogastric surgery as the week progresses. However, these studies were conducted in the pre-centralization and pre-minimally invasive era. In addition, they failed to correct for fixed weekdays of esophagogastric cancer surgery among hospitals. This study aimed to describe the impact of weekday of minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal surgery on short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

All patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit who underwent curative minimally invasive esophageal or gastric carcinoma surgery in 2015–2019, were included in this nationwide cohort study. Using multilevel multivariable logistic regression, the impact of weekday of surgery on 14 short-term surgical outcomes was investigated. To correct for interhospital variance in fixed weekday(s) of surgery multilevel analyses was used. Results were adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Results

This study included 4,102 patients undergoing minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal surgery (2,968 esophageal cancer and 1,134 gastric cancer patients). Weekday of surgery did not impact postoperative complications, severe postoperative complications, surgical/technical complications, medical complications, anastomotic leakage, complicated postoperative course, failure to rescue, surgical radicality, lymph node yield, 30-day/in-hospital mortality, reinterventions, length of ICU stay, 30-day readmission, and textbook outcome after neither esophageal cancer nor gastric cancer surgery.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive esophagogastric surgery can be performed safely on all weekdays with respect to short-term surgical outcomes, which is important information for operation room scheduling.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-021-06160-x.