Why are patients being readmitted after surgery for esophageal cancer?

Can Risk-Based Thromboprophylaxis Practice Guidelines be Safely Used in Esophagectomy Cases? Experience of an Academic Health System

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in 3-11% of esophagectomy patients and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The use of validated VTE risk assessment tools and compliance with recommended practice guidelines remains unclear. In this study, we seek to determine the use of Caprini guideline indicated VTE prophylaxis and its effect on VTE and bleeding complications following esophagectomy.

METHODS

Esophagectomy cases were identified from the Mayo Clinic electronic health records. Caprini score and VTE prophylaxis regimen received were determined retrospectively. VTE prophylaxis was identified as appropriate or inappropriate based on the Caprini score and prophylaxis received preoperative, during hospitalization, and after hospital discharge. Study cohorts were compared by Pearson Chi-square test, Fisher's Exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and logistic regression models. Stata/MP 16.1 was used for analysis. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported for logistic regression models. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-six esophagectomy cases were analyzed. The median Caprini score was thirteen. Appropriate prophylaxis resulted in a 6.9-fold reduction in inpatient VTE. All 30- and 90-day post-discharge VTEs occurred in those not receiving Caprini guideline-indicated VTE prophylaxis. Inpatient, 30- and 90-day post-discharge bleeding rates were 7.68%, 0.91%, and 2.11%, respectively; however, bleeding was not increased with receipt of appropriate prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

In this esophagectomy cohort, Caprini guideline indicated VTE prophylaxis resulted in reduced inpatient VTE events without increasing bleeding complications. Risk-based VTE prevention measures should be considered in this patient cohort known to be at heightened risk for postoperative VTE.

Short-term and intermediate-term readmission after esophagectomy

Background

The objective of this study was to characterize short- and intermediate-term readmissions following esophagectomy and to identify predictors of readmission in these two groups.

Methods

Patients who underwent esophagectomy in the National Readmissions Database (2013–2014) were grouped according to whether first readmission was “short-term” (readmitted <30 days) or “intermediate-term” (readmitted 31–90 days) following index admission for esophagectomy. Predictors of readmission were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression modeling.

Results

Of the 3,005 patients who underwent esophagectomy, 544 (18.1%) had a short-term readmission and 305 (10.1%) had an intermediate-term readmission. The most frequent reasons for short-term readmission were post-operative infection (7.5%), dysphagia (6.3%) and pneumonia (5.1%). The most common intermediate-term complications were pneumonia (7.2%), gastrointestinal stricture/stenosis (6.9%) and dysphagia (5.9%). In multivariable analysis, being located in a micropolitan area, increasing number of comorbidities and higher severity of illness score were associated with an increased likelihood of having a short-term readmission while being discharged to a facility (as opposed to directly home) was associated with increased likelihood of both short- and intermediate-term readmission (all P<0.05).

Conclusions

In this analysis, postoperative infection was the most common reason for short-term readmission. Dysphagia and pneumonia were common reasons for both short- and intermediate-term readmission of patients following esophagectomy. Interventions focused on reducing the risk of postoperative infection and pneumonia may reduce hospital readmissions. Gastrointestinal stricture and dysphagia were associated with increased risk of intermediate readmission and should be examined in the context of morbidity associated with pyloric procedures (e.g., pyloromyotomy) at the time of esophagectomy.

Salvage surgery, chylothorax and pneumonia are the main drivers of unplanned readmissions after oesophagectomy for cancer

OBJECTIVES

Unplanned readmissions after surgery can be cumbersome to patients and costly on healthcare resources. The aim of this single-centre study was to identify the independent risk factors for unplanned readmissions in patients who had undergone oesophagectomy for cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 526 consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer who received transthoracic oesophagectomy and were discharged home between 2006 and 2017. Risk factors for unplanned readmission within the first 30 days from discharge were identified by multivariable competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study patients was 55.14 years and 93.7% were men. Squamous cell carcinoma was identified in 94.1% of the participants, and 68.0% received chemoradiotherapy. There were 299 (56.8%) patients who experienced at least 1 postoperative complication. Fifty-five patients (10.5%) experienced an unplanned readmission. The postoperative 90-day mortality rate among patients who experienced an unplanned readmission was significantly higher than that of cases who did not (9.1% vs 0.2%, respectively, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis identified chylothorax [hazard ratio (HR): 3.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.89-7.91, P < 0.001], pneumonia (HR: 1.98, 95% CI 1.03-3.82, P = 0.042) and salvage surgery (HR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.10-4.69, P = 0.027) as independent risk factors for unplanned readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage surgery, postoperative chylothorax and pneumonia are the main drivers of 30-day unplanned readmissions in patients who had undergone oesophagectomy for cancer. Patients who required unplanned readmissions showed increased early mortality rates.

From Emergency Department Visit to Readmission After Esophagectomy: Analysis of Burden and Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Frequent emergency department (ED) visits occur after esophagectomy. We aimed to identify the incidence of and risk factors for conversion from ED visit to inpatient admission.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of consecutive esophagectomies at a tertiary Canadian center (1999 to 2014). Multivariable regression analyses identified factors associated with conversion from ED visit to admission.

RESULTS

There were 520 esophagectomies with 6% inhospital mortality (n = 31). Of those discharged, 29.7% (n = 145) had one or more emergency visit and 43.4% (n = 63) of these patients were readmitted to the hospital. First-time ED visits resulted in inpatient conversion 23.4% of the time (n = 34); successive ED visits resulted in increasing conversion. On multivariable analysis, anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1 to 6.01; P = .05) was independently associated with higher odds of conversion to admission. Sensitivity analysis using Poisson regression to model conversion as a rate identified that living in regions further away was associated with lower conversion rate to admission (risk ratio 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.94; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Although postesophagectomy ED utilization is high, the majority of visits do not convert to admission. With each increasing ED visit, likelihood of converting to admission increases. Anastomotic leakage was associated with higher odds of conversion to admission, possibly related to development of strictures. Access to urgent outpatient endoscopy may help reduce the incidence of ED visits and admission. Although living in regions further away is associated with lower conversion rates to admission at the index hospital, that may be due to patients utilizing closer local hospitals.

Length of hospital stay after uncomplicated esophagectomy. Hospital variation shows room for nationwide improvement

BACKGROUND

Within the scope of value-based health care, this study aimed to analyze Dutch hospital performance in terms of length of hospital stay after esophageal cancer surgery and its association with 30-day readmission rates. Since both parameters are influenced by the occurrence of complications, this study only included patients with an uneventful recovery after esophagectomy.

METHODS

All patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) who underwent a potentially curative esophagectomy between 2015 and 2018 were considered for inclusion. Patients were excluded in case of an intraoperative/post-operative complication, readmission to the intensive care unit, or any re-intervention. Length of hospital stay was dichotomized around the national median into 'short admissions' and 'long admissions'. Hospital variation was evaluated using a case-mix-corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses. Association of length of hospital stay with 30-day readmission rates was investigated using the χ2-statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 1007 patients was included. National median length of hospital stay was 9 days, ranging from 6.5 to 12.5 days among 17 hospitals. The percentage of 'short admissions' per hospital ranged from 7.7 to 93.5%. After correction for case-mix variables, 3 hospitals had significantly higher 'short admission' rates and 4 hospitals had significantly lower 'short admission' rates. Overall, 6.2% [hospital variation (0.0-13.2%)] of patients were readmitted. Hospital 30-day readmission rates were not significantly different between patients with a short length of hospital stay and those with a long length of hospital stay (5.5% versus 7.6%; p = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these nationwide audit data, median length of hospital stay after an uncomplicated esophagectomy was 9 days ranging from 6.5 to 12.5 days among Dutch hospitals. There was no association between length of hospital stay and readmission rates. Nationwide improvement might lead to a substantial reduction of hospital costs.

Wives as Key Persons Positively Impacting Prognosis for Male Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Study from a Single Japanese Institute

BACKGROUND

Identification of a key person for supporting patients with activities of daily living after esophagectomy can contribute to patients' nutrition, rehabilitation, mental status, and determination of treatments for cancer. It may also affect the patients' prognostic outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 504 patients who underwent three-incisional esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between June 2005 and June 2018 at the Kumamoto University Hospital. The association between the type of key person identified and overall survival (OS) was investigated. The impact of the key person on postoperative nutrition and survival after recurrence was also examined.

RESULTS

Clinical backgrounds in patients with and without wife as their key person were equivalent. OS among male patients who identified their wife as their key person was significantly better than that in those without their wife as key person (P = 0.0035). Cox regression analysis showed that absence of a wife was an independent risk factor for worse survival outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.393-0.987; P = 0.044) along with age, clinical stage, severe postoperative morbidity, and pathological curability. Presence of a wife did not affect postoperative nutritional status. Incidence of death due to other causes and OS after recurrence were better in male patients with a wife than in those without; however, this difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Among males with esophageal cancer, their wives may be a significant contributor to extension of survival after surgery, via various support mechanisms.

Early Readmissions after Esophagectomy for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Does Facility Case-Volume Matter?

Increased esophagectomy procedures over the past four decades have correlated with the rise in incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Despite advances in technology and procedural expertise, esophagectomy remains a high-risk surgical procedure. Higher volume facilities have more experience with esophagectomy and would be expected to have a lower incidence of surgical complications and attendant morbidity and mortality. By analyzing information from a nationwide United States hospital database, we sought to find out if there is a significant difference between facilities stratified by case volume, with regards to 30-day readmission after esophagectomy. The findings of this study indicated that even with a large applied differential, early readmissions did not differ significantly between high- and low-volume centers. Also, analyzed and discussed were any associated demographic and comorbidity factors as they relate to early readmissions after esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma across the country. This is the first study to specifically address these variables.

Incidence and risk factors of readmission after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Background

The Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) recommends that readmission to a primary or secondary hospital within 30 days of discharge after esophagectomy is an important quality outcome indicator for esophagectomy. This retrospective study was performed to investigate the incidence and risk factors for readmission after esophagectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 291 patients who received an esophagectomy and mediastinal lymphadenectomy for curative purposes from January 2006 to June 2017.

Results

The mean age was 63.02±8.02 years, and there were 264 (90.7%) male patients. Thirty-nine (13.4%) patients were re-admitted within 30 days after discharge. The mean interval from discharge to the readmission was 13.46±9.36. Common causes of readmission were anastomotic stricture that required ballooning (12, 30.7%), wound problem (7, 17.9%), pneumonia (6, 15.4%), and poor oral intake (4, 10.2%). Other causes of readmission were delayed gastric emptying [3], jejunostomy tube problem [2], ileus [2], pain [1], pneumothorax [1], and pleural effusion [1]. On multivariable analysis, anastomotic leakage (odd ratio =2.884, P=0.026) was significantly related to readmission, whereas age, pathologic stage, vocal cord palsy, and neoadjuvant therapy were not related to readmission.

Conclusions

Readmission within 30 days after esophagectomy was determined to be related to postoperative anastomotic leakage and wound problems whereas the vocal cord palsy was not.

Medium and long-term emergency department utilization after oesophagectomy: a population-based analysis

OBJECTIVES

Oesophagectomy is a complex operation with the potential for prolonged recovery. The aim of this study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization, specifically emergency department (ED) visits within 1 year of oesophagectomy, and to identify risk factors for ED visits and frequent ED use (FEDU).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive oesophagectomies for cancer in all Ontario hospitals was conducted using linked health data (2000-2012) including the ability to identify ED visits at non-index hospitals. Ontario has a single-payer healthcare system with a population of 13.8-million people. Multivariable regression was used to identify independent factors associated with ED visits and FEDU (≥3 ED visits) within 1 year after oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

There were 3344 oesophagectomies with in-hospital mortality of 5.8% (n = 193). Of those discharged, 16.4% (n = 549), 36.0% (n = 1203) and 55.8% (n = 1866) had ED visits within 30 days, 90 days and 1 year, respectively. Higher comorbidity [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.11, P < 0.0001], rurality (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.10-1.78, P = 0.006) and receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy (aOR = 2.55, 95% CI: 2.12-3.08, P < 0.0001) were independent risk factors for ED visits within 1 year of oesophagectomy. Thoracoscopic-assisted surgery was independently associated with decreased ED visits (aOR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.45-0.99, P = 0.049). Eight hundred and thirteen (24.3%) patients had FEDU. Higher comorbidity (aOR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.08-1.14, P < 0.0001), rurality (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31-2.10, P < 0.0001) and receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy (aOR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.93-2.93, P < 0.0001) were independent risk factors for FEDU. One health region had more ED visits (P = 0.04) and more FEDU (P = 0.001) when compared with the other regions. There were higher ED visits and FEDU in the later years of the study period (both P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ED visits are common after oesophagectomy with almost 25% of patients having ≥3 visits and >50% having ≥1 visit within 1 year of oesophagectomy. We have identified demographic, surgical and regional risk factors for the potential targeted quality improvement.

Emergency department use is high after esophagectomy and feeding tube problems are the biggest culprit

OBJECTIVES

Esophagectomy is a complex operation with potential for prolonged recovery. We aimed to identify the incidence of and risk factors for any and frequent emergency department visits within 1 year of esophagectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed looking at consecutive esophagectomies at a tertiary Canadian center (1999-2014). Multivariable analyses identified factors associated with any emergency department visits and frequent emergency department use (≥3 visits) within 1 year postesophagectomy.

RESULTS

There were 520 esophagectomies with in-hospital mortality of 6% (n = 31). Of those discharged, 29.7% (n = 145) had ≥ 1 emergency department visit. Most common causes were feeding tube problems (39.3%; n = 57) and dysphagia/stricture (13.1%; n = 19). Higher income (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.42 per $10,000) and use of hybrid/minimally invasive esophagectomy (aOR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.71-6.11) were independently associated with having emergency department visits. Patients with hybrid/minimally invasive esophagectomy were discharged earlier than others (P < .0001). Living outside of our metropolitan area (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) and having surgery in the later years of the study period (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; P = .006) were both independently associated with lower odds of emergency department visits. Forty-three patients (8.8%) were frequent emergency department users, with the most common causes of repeat emergency visits being feeding tube problems. Living outside of our metropolitan area was associated with lower odds of frequent emergency visits (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

There is high emergency department use within 1 year postesophagectomy. Patients living farther away from our hospital had a lower rate of emergency department use. It is possible that they are utilizing emergency departments nearer to home; this needs further study. Feeding tube problems are the biggest culprits and are potentially modifiable.

Anastomotic leakage after intrathoracic versus cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis for oesophageal carcinoma in Chinese population: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the characteristics and predictors for anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for oesophageal carcinoma from the perspective of anastomotic level.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

A single tertiary medical centre in China.

PARTICIPANTS

From January 2010 to December 2016, all patients with oesophageal cancer of the distal oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction undergoing elective oesophagectomy with a curative intent for oesophageal carcinoma with intrathoracic oesophagogastric anastomosis (IOA) versus cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis (COA) were included. We investigated anastomotic level and perioperative confounding factors as potential risk factors for postoperative leakage by univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the odds of anastomotic leakage by different confounding factors. Secondary outcome was the association of IOA versus COA with other postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 458 patients included, 126 underwent cervical anastomosis and 332 underwent intrathoracic anastomosis. Anastomotic leakage developed in 55 patients (12.0%), with no statistical differences between COA and IOA (16.6% vs 10.2%; p=0.058). Multivariable analysis identified active diabetes mellitus (OR 2.001, p=0.047), surgical procedure (open: reference; minimally invasive: OR 1.770, p=0.049) and anastomotic method (semimechanical: reference; stapled: OR 1.821; handsewn: OR 2.271, p=0.048) rather than anastomotic level (IOA: reference; COA: OR 1.622, p=0.110) were independent predictors of leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical and anastomotic techniques rather than the level of anastomotic site were independent predictors of postoperative anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing oesophageal cancer surgery.

Prophylaxis of Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Using Enoxaparin After Esophagectomy: A Prospective Observational Study of Effectiveness and Safety

BACKGROUND

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after esophagectomy is higher than in other gastroenterological cancer surgery. Although the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis using enoxaparin have been established in orthopedic, abdominal, and pelvic surgeries, no studies regarding esophagectomy are available.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted to elucidate the usefulness of enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after esophagectomy. The study enrolled 30 patients who underwent elective esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between April 2015 and October 2016. During postoperative days 2-11, the patients received a subcutaneous injection of enoxaparin (2000 IU) twice daily. The primary end point for the study was the incidence of postoperative VTE. In addition, the incidence of all enoxaparin treatment- and operation-related adverse events was investigated. The study identified VTE by VTE protocol-enhanced computed tomography, performed routinely during and after enoxaparin treatment.

RESULTS

One pulmonary embolism (PE) (3.3%) and two deep vein thromboses (DVTs) (6.7%) were observed during enoxaparin treatment. In addition, one PE (3.6%) and four DVTs (14.3%) (one patient experienced both) were observed after treatment. All VTEs were asymptomatic. Regarding enoxaparin-related adverse events, four minor bleeds occurred but did not require discontinuation of enoxaparin. The incidence of postoperative morbidity was acceptable. In blood tests related to coagulation, no significant differences were observed between patients with and without VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors believe that thromboprophylaxis using enoxaparin is safe and can prevent VTE after esophagectomy. However, its effectiveness is limited to the period of treatment, so additional prophylaxis may be recommended.

Hospital readmission rates and risk factors for readmission following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal surface malignancies

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery and Hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for peritoneal surface malignancies is associated with high morbidity. The increased numbers of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC in recent years mandates risk analysis and quality assurance. However, only scarce data exist regarding causative parameters for readmission. The aim of this study was to assess readmission rates and risk factors associated with readmission.

METHODS

A retrospective-cohort study including patients from two high-volume centers who underwent CRS/HIPEC surgery between the years 2007-2016 was performed. Patients' demographics, peri-operative data and readmission rates were recorded.

RESULTS

223 patients were included in the study. The 7 and 30-day readmission rates were 3.5% (n = 8) and 11% (n = 25), respectively. Late readmission rates (up to 90 days) were 11% (n = 25). The most common causes of readmission were surgical related infections (35%), small bowel obstruction (17.5%) and dehydration (14%). Post-operative complications were associated with higher readmission rates (p = 0.0001). PCI score was not associated with higher rates of readmission.

CONCLUSION

Readmissions following CRS/HIPEC occur mainly due to infectious complications and dehydrations. Patients following CRS/HIPEC should be discharged after careful investigation to a community based continuing care with access for IV fluid replacement or antibiotics administration when required.

Impact of Sarcopenia on Unplanned Readmission and Survival After Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although sarcopenia increases postoperative complications following esophagectomy, its effects on prognosis remain unclear. This study was performed to identify the effect of sarcopenia on 90-day unplanned readmission and overall survival (OS) after esophagectomy.

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy were enrolled in this study. Unplanned readmission was defined as any emergent hospitalization within 90 days after discharge. Sarcopenia, defined as low muscle mass plus low muscle strength and/or low physical performance according to the Asian consensus definition, was assessed prior to esophagectomy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors that contributed to 90-day unplanned readmission. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the relationship between sarcopenia and OS.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (31.6%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia. The 90-day unplanned readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with sarcopenia than those without (42.9% vs. 16.4%, respectively; p = 0.01). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that sarcopenia was an independent predictor of 90-day unplanned readmission [odds ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-11.05; p = 0.02], and the log-rank test showed that sarcopenia was associated with OS (p = 0.01). Moreover, sarcopenia was a significant predictor of OS after adjustment for age, sex, and pathological stage (hazard ratio 2.35, 95% CI 1.21-4.54; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Sarcopenia is a risk factor for 90-day unplanned readmission and OS following esophagectomy. Assessment of sarcopenia could help to identify patients at higher risk of a poor prognosis after esophagectomy.

Benefits of Supplemental Jejunostomy Tube Feeding During Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Locally Advanced, Potentially Resectable Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer includes neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. However, many patients experience a period of decreased oral intake during neoadjuvant treatment and are at risk for malnutrition. We hypothesize that use of jejunostomy tube (j-tube) feedings during neoadjuvant therapy in selected patients may be associated with better perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database at a single institution was retrospectively analyzed. The study period was from 2005 to 2015. Patients who underwent j-tube placement before neoadjuvant therapy before definitive resection for esophageal cancer were included in the analysis. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who adhered to recommended tube feeds during neoadjuvant therapy (users) and patients who did not adhere (nonusers).

RESULTS

During the study period, 94/301 patients received a j-tube before or during neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer. Seventy-three patients utilized tube feeds regularly during the neoadjuvant phase, while 21 patients did not. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to clinical factors such as dysphagia on presentation, postneoadjuvant therapy performance status, or Charlson Comorbidity Index. Perioperative pneumonia rates were lower in j-tube users compared to nonusers (6.8% [5 of 73] versus 23.8% [5 of 21]), respectively, P = .036); this difference remained significant with adjustment for type of surgery (odds ratio = 0.16, P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

j-Tube users had a significantly lower incidence of pneumonia within 30 days of curative resection when compared to nonusers. j-Tube feedings during neoadjuvant therapy for selected patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer should be encouraged.

Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity

BACKGROUND

There is a clear survival benefit to neoadjuvant chemoradiation prior to esophagectomy for patients with stages II-III esophageal cancer. A minimally invasive esophagectomy approach may decrease morbidity but is more challenging in a previously radiated field and therefore patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation may experience more postoperative complications.

METHODS

A prospective database of all esophageal cancer patients who underwent attempted hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was maintained between 2006 and 2015. The clinical characteristics, neoadjuvant treatments, perioperative complications, and survival outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Overall 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 0.8% (1/131) and 2.3% (3/131), respectively. The majority of patients 58% (76/131) underwent induction treatment without significant adverse impact on mortality, major complications, or hospital stay. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 85.9%, 65.3%, and 53.9%. Five-year survival by pathologic stage was stage I 68.9%, stage II 54.0%, and stage III 29.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy approach results in low perioperative morbidity and mortality and is well tolerated after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Good long-term overall survival rates likely resulted from combined concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the majority of patients, which did not impact the ability to safely perform the operation or postoperative complications rates. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:838-847. © 2016 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Post-discharge complications after esophagectomy account for high readmission rates

AIM: To identify rates of post-discharge complications (PDC), associated risk factors, and their influence on early hospital outcomes after esophagectomy.

METHODS: We used the 2005-2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database to identify patients ≥ 18 years of age who underwent an esophagectomy. These procedures were categorized into four operative approaches: transhiatal, Ivor-Lewis, 3-holes, and non-gastric conduit. We selected patient data based on clinical relevance to patients undergoing esophagectomy and compared demographic and clinical characteristics. The primary outcome was PDC, and secondary outcomes were hospital readmission and reoperation. The patients were then divided in 3 groups: no complication (Group 1), only pre-discharge complication (Group 2), and PDC patients (Group 3). A modified Poisson regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with developing post-discharge complication, and risk ratios were estimated.

RESULTS: 4483 total patients were identified, with 8.9% developing PDC within 30-d after esophagectomy. Patients who experienced complications post-discharge had a median initial hospital length of stay (LOS) of 9 d; however, PDC occurred on average 14 d following surgery. Patients with PDC had greater rates of wound infection (41.0% vs 19.3%, P < 0.001), venous thromboembolism (16.3% vs 8.9%, P < 0.001), and organ space surgical site infection (17.1% vs 11.0%, P = 0.001) than patients with pre-discharge complication. The readmission rate in our entire population was 12.8%. PDC patients were overwhelmingly more likely to have a reoperation (39.5% vs 22.4%, P < 0.001) and readmission (66.9% vs 6.6%, P < 0.001). BMI 25-29.9 and BMI ≥ 30 were associated with increased risk of PDC compared to normal BMI (18.5-25).

CONCLUSION: PDC after esophagectomy account for significant number of reoperations and readmissions. Efforts should be directed towards optimizing patient’s health pre-discharge, with possible prevention programs at discharge.

Complex Esophageal Reconstruction Procedures Have Acceptable Outcomes Compared With Routine Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Complex esophageal reconstruction (CER) is defined as restoring esophageal continuity in a previously operated field, using a nongastric conduit, or after esophageal diversion. This study compares the outcomes of CER with non-CER (NCER), which uses an undisturbed stomach for reconstruction.

METHODS

This single-institution retrospective cohort study compares 75 CERs with 75 NCERs from 1995 to 2014 that were matched for cancer versus benign disease. Distributions of demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and complications were compared between CER and NCER. Odds of mortality at 30 and 90 days were calculated with logistic regression. Overall survival was illustrated with Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Although patients were similar in age, sex, and preoperative comorbidities, more non-white patients underwent CER (p = 0.04). Most NCER patients had adenocarcinoma (44%) or Barrett's high-grade dysplasia (39%); most CER patients had other benign disease (44%) or squamous cell carcinoma (24%, p < 0.01). CER had statistically significantly higher rates of reoperation, pneumonia, infection, and gastrointestinal complications, and longer median length of stay than NCER. Odds of mortality for CER and NCER at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.0, 95% CI: 0.1 to 16.3), 90 days (OR 2.6, 95% CI: 0.5 to 13.9) and overall (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI: 0.9 to 2.7) were not statistically significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with NCER, CER patients had higher rates of return to the operating room, more postoperative infections and gastrointestinal complications, and longer length of stay. However, 30-day, 90-day, and overall survival were similar. CER should be offered to patients with acceptable risks and anticipated long-term survival.

Plasma MicroRNA-21 Predicts Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Pneumoresection

Postoperative pulmonary complication (PPC) remains the most common postoperative complication in patients undergoing noncardiac thoracic surgery. We conducted the clinical study to determine the diagnostic role of miRNA-21 in noncardiac thoracic surgery. 368 patients undergoing noncardiac thoracic surgery were recruited. Blood samples were collected before anesthesia and 2 hours after incision during surgery for RT-PCR measurement of miRNA-21. PPC occurrence, extrapulmonary complications, duration of ICU stay, and death within 1 year were evaluated. The overall rate of PPCs following surgery was 10.32%. A high relative miRNA-21 level was an independent risk factor for PPCs within 7 days (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.25-5.66; and P < 0.001). High miRNA-21 was also associated with an increased risk of extrapulmonary complications (OR, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.26-5.81; and P < 0.001), prolonged ICU stay (OR, 6.54; 95% CI, 2.26-18.19; and P < 0.001), increased death within 30 days (OR, 6.17; 95% CI, 2.11-18.08; and P < 0.001), and death within 1 year (OR, 7.30; 95% CI, 2.76-19.28; and P < 0.001). In summary, plasma miRNA-21 may serve as a novel biomarker of PPCs for patients undergoing noncardiac thoracic surgery.