Association Between Perioperative Fluid Balance and 30-Day Unplanned Readmission After Major Abdominal Surgery

Short and Long-term Outcomes Among High-Volume vs Low-Volume Esophagectomy Surgeons at a High-Volume Center

To determine associations between surgeon volume and esophagectomy outcomes at a high-volume institution. All esophagectomies for esophageal cancer at our institution from August 2005 to August 2019 were reviewed. Cases were divided by surgeon into low, <7 cases/year, vs high volume, ≥7 cases/year, based on Leapfrog Group recommendations. Surgeons remained 'high-volume' after one year of ≥7 cases. Demographics, comorbidities, course of care, and long-term outcomes were compared. In total, 1029 cases were evaluated; 120 performed by low-volume surgeons vs 909 by high-volume surgeons. Never-smokers, atrial fibrillation, and clinical Stage IVa patients were associated with high-volume surgeons. Other demographics were similar. Low-volume surgeons did more open cases, 45.8% vs 14.5%, P < 0.01. Low-volume surgeons had more complications than high-volume surgeons (71.7% vs 57.6%, P < 0.01), specifically Grade II and III (59.2% vs 46.8%, P = 0.01, and 44.2% vs 27.0%, P <0.01). No differences were seen in anastomotic leak rate, 90-day mortality, recurrences, 5-year overall survival (46.7% low-volume vs 49.3% high-volume, P = 0.64), or 5-year disease-free survival (35.7% low-volume vs 42.2% high-volume, P = 0.27). In multivariable logistic regression for Grade III or higher complications, high-volume surgeons had an odds ratio of 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.87) for complications. Our study found higher rates of open esophagectomies and complications in low-volume esophagectomy surgeons compared to high-volume surgeons at the same, high-volume institution. However, low-volume surgeons were not associated with worse survival outcomes compared to high-volume surgeons. Low-volume esophagectomy surgeons may benefit from mentoring and support to improve perioperative outcomes; these efforts are underway at our institution.

Perioperative fluid balance and 30-day unplanned readmission after lung cancer surgery: a retrospective study

Background

Perioperative positive fluid balance (FB) is associated with increased complications after lung resection surgery. However, its impact on the 30-day unplanned readmission rate is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether perioperative FB status during and up to 24 hours after lung resection surgery is associated with the 30-day unplanned readmission rate.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study examined adult patients aged 19 years or older who underwent lung cancer surgery at a single tertiary academic hospital between January 2005 and February 2018. Weight-based cumulative FB (%) was calculated during and up to 24 hours after surgery and was categorized as positive (≥5%), normal (0-5%), or negative (<0%). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

The final analysis included 2,412 patients; 164 patients had unplanned readmission during the first 30 postoperative days (6.9%; 164/2,412). According to the multivariable logistic regression model, the positive FB group had a 2.42-time higher risk of 30-day unplanned readmission compared to the normal FB group [odds ratio (OR): 2.42; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20 to 4.89; P=0.014]. However, the risk of the negative FB group did not significantly differ from that of the normal FB group (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.46 to 3.12; P=0.711).

Conclusions

Perioperative positive FB (>5%) during and up to 24 hours after surgery was associated with an increased 30-day unplanned readmission rate after lung cancer surgery. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.