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

Hospital Variation in Feeding Jejunostomy Policy for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Nationwide Cohort Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate hospital variation in the placement, surgical techniques, and safety of feeding jejunostomies (FJ) during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the Netherlands. This nationwide cohort study analyzed patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) that underwent MIE for cancer. Hospital variation in FJ placement rates were investigated using case-mix corrected funnel plots. Short-term outcomes were compared between patients with and without FJ using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analysis. The incidence of FJ-related complications was described and compared between hospitals performing routine and non-routine placement (≥90%−<90% of patients). Between 2018−2020, an FJ was placed in 1481/1811 (81.8%) patients. Rates ranged from 11−100% among hospitals. More patients were discharged within 10 days (median hospital stay) without FJ compared to patients with FJ (64.5% vs. 50.4%; OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42−0.90). FJ-related complications occurred in 45 (3%) patients, of whom 23 (1.6%) experienced severe complications (≥Clavien−Dindo IIIa). The FJ-related complication rate was 13.7% in hospitals not routinely placing FJs vs. 1.7% in hospitals performing routine FJ placement (p < 0.001). Significant hospital variation in the use of FJs after MIE exists in the Netherlands. No effect of FJs on complications was observed. FJs can be placed safely, with lower FJ-related complication rates, in centers performing routine placement.

Characterizing 30-d Postoperative Acute Care Visits: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Collaborative Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Many postoperative acute care visits (PACVs) are likely more appropriately addressed in lower acuity settings; however, the frequency and nature of PACVs are not currently tracked by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the overall burden to emergency departments and urgent care centers is unknown.

METHODS

NSQIP collaborative data were augmented to prospectively capture 30-d PACVs for 1 y starting October 2018 across all NSQIP specialties, including visit reason and disposition. Data were analyzed using binomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 9933 patients were identified; 12.0% (n = 1193) presented to an acute care setting over 1413 visits, most commonly for surgical pain (15.4%) in the absence of an identified complication. Visits most commonly resulted in discharge (n = 817, 68.5%) or admission (n = 343, 24.3%). Variables independently associated with visits resulting in discharge included age (odds ratio [OR] 0.99 per year, P < 0.001), increasing comorbidities (1-2 [OR 1.55, P < 0.001]; 3-4 [OR 2.51, P < 0.001]; 5+ [OR 2.79 P < 0.001]), operative duration (OR 1.08 per hour, P = 0.001), and nonelective (OR 1.20, P = 0.01) or urologic (OR 1.46, P = 0.01) procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

PACVs are an overlooked burden on emergency medicine providers and healthcare systems; most do not require admission and could be potentially triaged outside of the acute care setting with improved perioperative care infrastructure. Younger patients, those with multiple comorbidities, and those undergoing nonelective procedures deserve special attention when designing initiatives to address postoperative acute care utilization. Data regarding PACVs can be routinely collected with minor modifications to current NSQIP workflows.

A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach

Objective

Newer minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have brought substantial benefits to esophageal-cancer patients and continue to improve. We report here our experience with a streamlined procedure as part of a comprehensive perioperative-care program that provides additional advances in the continued evolution of this procedure.

Methods

All patients with primary esophageal cancer referred for resection to the Oakland Medical Center of the Kaiser-Permanente Northern California health plan who underwent this approach between January 2013 and August 2018 were included. Operative and clinical outcome variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, operating-room files, and manual chart review.

Results

142 patients underwent the new procedure and care program; 121 (85.2%) were men with mean age of 64.5 years. 127 (89.4%) were adenocarcinoma; 117 (82.4%) were clinical stage III or IVA. 115 (81.0%) required no jejunostomy. Median hospital length-of-stay was 3 days and 8 (5.6%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (15.5%) patients within 30 days of the procedure. There were no inpatient deaths; one patient (0.7%) died within 30 days following discharge and three additional deaths (2.1%) occurred through 90 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

This approach resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, including short hospital stays with limited need for the intensive care unit, few perioperative complications, and relatively few patients requiring feeding tubes on discharge. This comprehensive approach to esophagectomy is feasible and provides another clinically meaningful advance in the progress of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Further development and dissemination of this method is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.

Risk Factors for Failure of Direct Oral Feeding Following a Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Recently, it has been shown that directly starting oral feeding (DOF) from postoperative day one (POD1) after a totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL) can further improve postoperative outcomes. However, in some patients, tube feeding by a preemptively placed jejunostomy is necessary. This single-center cohort study investigated risk factors associated with failure of DOF in patients that underwent a MIE-IL between October 2015 and April 2021. A total of 165 patients underwent a MIE-IL, in which DOF was implemented in the enhanced recovery after surgery program. Of these, 70.3% (n = 116) successfully followed the nutritional protocol. In patients in which tube feeding was needed (29.7%; n = 49), female sex (compared to male) (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.5–8.1)) and higher ASA scores (III + IV versus II) (OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.0–4.8)) were independently associated with failure of DOF for any cause. In case of failure, this was either due to a postoperative complication (n = 31, 18.8%) or insufficient caloric intake on POD5 (n = 18, 10.9%). In the subgroup of patients with complications, higher ASA scores (OR 2.8 (95% CI 1.2–6.8)) and histological subtypes (squamous-cell carcinoma versus adenocarcinoma and undifferentiated) (OR 5.2 (95% CI 1.8–15.1)) were identified as independent risk factors. In the subgroup of patients with insufficient caloric intake, female sex was identified as a risk factor (OR 5.8 (95% CI 2.0–16.8)). Jejunostomy-related complications occurred in 17 patients (10.3%). In patients with preoperative risk factors, preemptively placing a jejunostomy may be considered to ensure that nutritional goals are met.

Preoperative nutritional counselling in patients undergoing oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer are at high risk of malnutrition due to pathology and neoadjuvent therapy. This study sought to determine if oesophageal cancer patients undergoing oesophagectomy achieve superior clinical outcomes when preoperative nutritional counselling is performed.

METHODS

Oesophageal cancer patients undergoing oesophagectomy were retrospectively divided into cohorts based on those who received (n = 48) and did not receive (n = 58) preoperative nutritional counselling. We compared weight loss, length of stay, 30-day readmission related to nutrition or feeding tube problems, and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Per cent weight loss was less in patients who received preoperative nutritional counselling. There was a trend toward decreased mean length of stay and there were fewer readmissions for feeding tube-related complications in patients who received counselling.

CONCLUSIONS

Nutritional counselling before surgery may lead to decreased weight loss and reduced readmissions for feeding tube-related complications in patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing oesophagectomy.

Utility of feeding jejunostomy in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy with a high risk of anastomotic leakage

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy is widely used for enteral nutrition (EN) after esophagectomy; however, its risks and benefits are still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of feeding jejunal tube (FJT) in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who were deemed high-risk for anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 716 patients who underwent esophagectomy with (FJT group, n=68) or without (control group, n=648) intraoperative placement of FJT. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used for the adjustment of confounding factors. Risk level for anastomotic leakage was determined for every patient after PSM.

RESULTS

Patients in the FJT group were at higher risk of anastomotic leakage (14.9% vs. 11.3%), and had a statistically non-significant increase of postoperative complications [31.3% vs. 21.8%, odds ratio (OR) =1.139, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.947-1.370, P=0.141] after PSM. Medical expenditure, length of postoperative hospital stay, and short-term mortality were similar between the FJT and control groups. Placement of FJT appeared to accelerate the recovery of anastomotic leakage (27.2 vs. 37.4 d, P=0.073). Patients in FJT group achieved comparable overall survival (OS) both before [hazard ratio (HR) =0.850, P=0.390] and after (HR =0.797, P=0.292) PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

FJT showed acceptable safety profile along with potential benefits for ESCC patients with a high presumed risk of anastomotic leakage. While FJT does not impact OS, placement of FJT should be considered in esophagectomy patients and tailored to individual patients based on their leak-risk profile.

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.

Is the placement of jejunostomy tubes in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy associated with increased inpatient healthcare utilization? An analysis of the National Readmissions Database

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing esophagectomy often receive jejunostomy tubes (j-tubes) for nutritional supplementation. We hypothesized that j-tubes are associated with increased post-esophagectomy readmissions.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified esophagectomies for malignancy with (EWJ) or without (EWOJ) j-tubes using the 2010-2015 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Outcomes include readmission, inpatient mortality, and complications. Outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Of 22,429 patients undergoing esophagectomy, 16,829 (75.0%) received j-tubes. Patients were similar in age and gender but EWJ were more likely to receive chemotherapy (24.2% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.01). EWJ was associated with decreased 180-day inpatient mortality (HR 0.72 [0.52-0.99]) but not with higher readmissions at 30- (15.2% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.16; HR 0.9 [0.77-1.05]) or 180 days (25.2% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.37; HR 0.94 [0.79-1.10]) or increased complications (p = 0.37). These results were confirmed in the PSM cohort.

CONCLUSION

J-tubes placed in the setting of esophagectomy do not increase inpatient readmissions or mortality.

Optimal timing and route of nutritional support after esophagectomy: A review of the literature

Some controversy surrounds the postoperative feeding regimen utilized in patients who undergo esophagectomy. Variation in practices during the perioperative period exists including the type of nutrition started, the delivery route, and its timing. Adequate nutrition is essential for this patient population as these patients often present with weight loss and have altered eating patterns after surgery, which can affect their ability to regain or maintain weight. Methods of feeding after an esophagectomy include total parenteral nutrition, nasoduodenal/nasojejunal tube feeding, jejunostomy tube feeding, and oral feeding. Recent evidence suggests that early oral feeding is associated with shorter LOS, faster return of bowel function, and improved quality of life. Enhanced recovery pathways after surgery pathways after esophagectomy with a component of early oral feeding also seem to be safe, feasible, and cost-effective, albeit with limited data. However, data on anastomotic leaks is mixed, and some studies suggest that the incidence of leaks may be higher with early oral feeding. This risk of anastomotic leak with early feeding may be heavily modulated by surgical approach. No definitive data is currently available to definitively answer this question, and further studies should look at how these early feeding regimens vary by surgical technique. This review aims to discuss the existing literature on the optimal route and timing of feeding after esophagectomy.