Enteral Feeding Access Has an Impact on Outcomes for Patients with Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Esophagectomy: An Analysis of SEER-Medicare

Comparison of Gastrostomy Techniques in Stroke Patients With Dysphagia: An Entropy-Balanced Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Enteral nutrition is commonly placed via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) techniques. This study compared perioperative outcomes of PEG and RIG in adults with dysphagia caused by cerebral infarction.

METHODS

Adult stroke patients who underwent either PEG or RIG between 2018 and 2020 at a tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. Differences in baseline characteristics between PEG and RIG patients were adjusted using entropy-balanced weights. Multivariable weighted logistic and linear regressions were subsequently developed to evaluate the independent association between RIG and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

217 stroke patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 37 (17.0%) received PEG and 180 (83.0%) received RIG. Compared to PEG, patients with RIG were more commonly Medicare beneficiaries and had a higher burden of comorbidities as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index. Time to achieve goal feeds was comparable between PEG and RIG (3 d [interquartile range 2-5] vs 4 d [interquartile range 3-5], respectively, P = 0.059). After multivariate adjustment, RIG was associated with significantly lower odds of reoperation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.50, P = 0.005), cerebrovascular accident (AOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.00-0.74, P = 0.030), and intensive care unit admission (AOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.70, P = 0.017). Risk factors for in-hospital mortality among RIG included arrhythmia (AOR 6.54, 95% CI 1.67-15.48, P = 0.009), myocardial infarction (AOR 4.78, 95% CI 2.25-10.23, P = 0.009), and obesity (AOR 4.48, 95% CI 1.03-9.61, P = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

While both techniques are effective methods of enteral feeding in stroke patients, RIG may confer lower perioperative morbidity. Local referral patterns and individual patient comorbidities could influence outcomes following PEG or RIG, necessitating careful patient selection.

How to use the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data: research design and methodology

In the United States (US), the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program is the only comprehensive source of population-based information that includes stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis and patient survival data. This program aims to provide a database about cancer incidence and survival for studies of surveillance and the development of analytical and methodological tools in the cancer field. Currently, the SEER program covers approximately half of the total cancer patients in the US. A growing number of clinical studies have applied the SEER database in various aspects. However, the intrinsic features of the SEER database, such as the huge data volume and complexity of data types, have hindered its application. In this review, we provided a systematic overview of the commonly used methodologies and study designs for retrospective epidemiological research in order to illustrate the application of the SEER database. Therefore, the goal of this review is to assist researchers in the selection of appropriate methods and study designs for enhancing the robustness and reliability of clinical studies by mining the SEER database.

Home enteral nutrition for patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Home enteral nutrition (HEN) is a relatively new nutritional intervention that provides patients with EN support at home through jejunostomy or nasogastric feeding tubes. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the safety and effect of HEN compared with normal oral diet (NOD) in postoperative patients with esophageal cancer (EC).

Methods

EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were used to search articles in English-language journals. The intervention effect was expressed using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcome measures, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The chi-square test and I-square test were used to test heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Four studies were eventually included in this meta-analysis. Compared with NOD, HEN has a favorable impact on postoperative body mass index (BMI) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.09–1.30, P = 0.02), lean body mass (LBM) (WMD = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.04–1.48, P = 0.04), and appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) (WMD = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.02–0.58, P = 0.03). Physical function (WMD = 9.26, 95% CI: 8.00–10.53, P < 0.001), role function (WMD = 9.96, 95% CI: 8.11–11.82, P < 0.001), and social function (WMD = 8.51, 95% CI: 3.48–13.54, P = 0.001) of the HEN group were better than those of the NOD group at 3 months, and HEN could reduce the fatigue of patients (WMD = −12.73, 95% CI: −14.8 to −10.66, P < 0.001) and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34–0.81, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in albumin between HEN and NOD groups (WMD = 0.05, 95% CI: −0.03 to 0.13, P = 0.20).

Conclusion

HEN improved nutritional status and quality of life (QOL) in postoperative patients with EC and reduced fatigue and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia. All in all, the results of our meta-analysis support the use of HEN after esophagectomy.

[Development and validation of a prognostic model based on SEER data for patients with esophageal carcinoma after esophagectomy]

OBJECTIVE

To develop a nomogram to predict the long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer following esophagectomy.

METHODS

We collected the data of 7215 patients with esophageal carcinoma from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during the period from 2004 and 2016. Of these patients, 5052 were allocated to the training cohort and the remaining 2163 patients to the internal validation cohort using bootstrap resampling, with another 435 patients treated in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery of Jinling Hospital between 2014 and 2016 serving as the external validation cohort.

RESULTS

In the overall cohort, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year cancer-specific mortality rates were 14.6%, 35.7% and 41.6%, respectively. Age (≥80 years vs < 50 years, P < 0.001), gender (male vs female, P < 0.001), tumor site (lower vs middle segment, P=0.013), histology (EAC vs ESCC, P=0.012), tumor grade (poorly vs well differentiated, P < 0.001), TNM stage (Ⅳ vs Ⅰ, P < 0.001), tumor size (> 50 mm vs 0-20 mm, P < 0.001), chemotherapy (yes vs no, P < 0.001), and LNR (> 0.25 vs 0, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors affecting long-term survival of the patients. The nomograms established based on the model for predicting the survival probability of the patients at 1, 3 and 5 years after operation showed a C-index of 0.726 (95% CI: 0.714-0.738) for predicting the overall survival (OS) and of 0.735 (95% CI: 0.727-0.743) for cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the training cohort. In the internal validation cohort, the C-index of the nomograms was 0.752 (95% CI: 0.738-0.76) for OS and 0.804 (95% CI: 0.790-0.817) for CSS, as compared with 0.749 (95% CI: 0.736-0.767) and 0.788 (95%CI: 0.751-0.808), respectively, in the external validation cohort. The nomograms also showed a higher sensitivity than the TNM staging system for predicting long-term prognosis.

CONCLUSION

This prognostic model has a high prediction efficiency and can help to identify the high-risk patients with esophageal carcinoma after surgery and serve as a supplement for the current TNM staging system.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy prior to esophagectomy for esophageal cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For resectable esophageal cancer (EC), it remains controversial whether to place percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) before the curative surgery to provide nutritional support during the neoadjuvant therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical outcomes for patients who received preoperative PEG and those without PEG placement (No-PEG) insertion prior to surgery in a potentially operable EC.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify randomized and non-randomized studies comparing PEG and No-PEG groups.

RESULTS

Four retrospective studies with a total number of 1,027 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The differences in anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, pulmonary complications, wound infection, and hospital stay were not statistically significant between the two groups. Operation time was significantly shorter in the PEG group. There was no PEG-related gastric conduit failure and no leak from the PEG site in the PEG group.

CONCLUSION

We conclude preoperative PEG for resectable EC is a safe procedure with no adverse effect on the gastric tube construction and anastomosis, it can be selectively inserted for EC patients with marked weight loss and malnutrition or those at risk of developing malnutrition during neoadjuvant therapy.

Preoperative Muscle Strength Is a Predictor of Outcomes After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia, loss of muscle mass and strength, has been associated with more frequent complications after esophagectomy. This study compared hand-grip strength, muscle mass, and intramuscular adipose tissue as predictors of postoperative outcomes and mortality after esophagectomy.

METHODS

Minimally invasive esophagectomy was performed on 175 patients with esophageal cancer. Skeletal muscle index and skeletal muscle density were derived from preoperative CTs. Hand-grip strength was measured using dynamometer. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Preoperative hand-grip strength was normal in 91 (52%), intermediate in 43 (25%), and weak in 41 (23%) patients. Hand-grip strength was significantly correlated with both skeletal muscle index and skeletal muscle density. Postoperative pneumonia occurred in 8/41 (20%) patients with weak strength compared to 4/91 (4%) with normal strength (p = 0.006; Cochran-Armitage Test). Prolonged postoperative ventilation occurred in 11/41 (27%) patients with weak strength compared to 11/91 (12%) with normal strength (p = 0.036). Median length of stay was 9 days in patients with weak strength compared to 7 days for those with normal strength (p = 0.005; Kruskal-Wallis Test). Discharge to non-home location occurred in 15/41 (37%) with weak strength compared to 8/91 (9%) with normal strength (p < 0.001). Postoperative mortality at 90 days was 4/41 (10%) with weak strength compared with no mortalities (0/91) in the normal strength group (p = 0.004). Mortality at 1 year was 18/39 (46%) in patients with weak strength compared to 6/81 (7%) with normal strength, among 158 patients with 1-year follow-up (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative hand-grip strength was found to be a powerful predictor of postoperative pneumonia, length of stay, discharge to non-home location, and mortality after esophagectomy.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

METHODS

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

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.

Nutritional jejunostomy in esophagectomy for cancer, a national register-based cohort study of associations with postoperative outcomes and survival

Purpose

Insertion of a nutritional jejunostomy in conjunction with esophagectomy is performed with the intention to decrease the risk for postoperative malnutrition and improve recovery without adding significant catheter-related complications. However, previous research has shown no clear benefit and there is currently no consensus of practice.

Methods

All patients treated with esophagectomy due to cancer during the period 2006–2017 reported in the Swedish National Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer were included in this register-based cohort study from a national database. Patients were stratified into two groups: esophagectomy alone and esophagectomy with jejunostomy.

Results

A total of 847 patients (45.27%) had no jejunostomy inserted while 1024 patients (54.73%) were treated with jejunostomy. The groups were comparable, but some differences were seen in histological tumor type and tumor stage between the groups. No significant differences in length of hospital stay, postoperative surgical complications, Clavien-Dindo score, or 90-day mortality rate were seen. There was no evidence of increased risk for significant jejunostomy-related complications. Patients in the jejunostomy group with anastomotic leaks had a statistically significant lower risk for severe morbidity defined as Clavien-Dindo score ≥ IIIb (adjusted odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04–0.94, P = 0.041) compared to patients with anastomotic leaks and no jejunostomy.

Conclusion

A nutritional jejunostomy is a safe method for early postoperative enteral nutrition which might decrease the risk for severe outcomes in patients with anastomotic leaks. Nutritional jejunostomy should be considered for patients undergoing curative intended surgery for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer.

Vertical distance from navel as a risk factor for bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Placement of feeding jejunostomy (PFJ) during esophagectomy is an effective method to maintain adequate nutrition, but is associated with serious complications such as bowel obstruction and jejunal torsion. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the incidence, clinical features, and risk factors of bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy (BOFJ) after PFJ.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 70 patients who underwent esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer and treated with PFJ between March 2013 and December 2019 in our hospital. Abdominal dissection was performed under hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) from March 2013 to March 2015, and was changed to complete laparoscopic surgery in April 2015. We compared patients with and without BOFJ, and the incidence of BOFJ was evaluated. The primary endpoint was incidence of BOFJ after PFJ.

Results

Six patients (8.5%) were diagnosed with BOFJ, all of whom were symptomatic and in the HALS group. In addition, 3 cases displayed histories of recurrent BOFJ (3, 3, and 5 times). Laparotomy was performed in all cases. Subgroup analysis of the HALS group showed a significant difference only in straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel as a significant pre- and perioperative factor (117 mm [101–130 mm] vs. 89 mm [51–150 mm], p < 0.001). Furthermore, dividing straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel into VD and HD, only VD differed significantly (107 mm [93–120 mm] vs. 79 mm [28–135 mm], p = 0.010), not HD (48 mm [40–59 mm] vs. 46 mm [22–60 mm], p = 0.199).

Conclusions

VD between the jejunostomy and navel was associated with BOFJ after PFJ with HALS esophagectomy. PFJ < 9 cm above the navel during HALS esophagectomy might effectively prevent BOFJ.

Home enteral nutrition after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Not only has the placement rate of enteral feeding tubes during operations for esophageal cancer increased, but also has number of patients who choose to continue enteral feeding at home instead of removing the feeding tube at discharge. The impacts of home enteral nutrition (HEN) after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients are analyzed.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, CBM, CNKI, and Wan Fang were searched from inception to December 7, 2019. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the short-term outcomes of HEN following esophagectomy in cancer patients were included. The risk of bias of the included studies was appraised according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The summary of relative risk/weighted mean difference (WMD) estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials involving 757 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with oral diet, HEN was associated with significantly increased body weight (WMD 3 kg, 95% CI 2.36-3.63, P < .001), body mass index (WMD 0.97 kg/m, 95% CI 0.74-1.21, P < .001), albumin (WMD 3.43 g/L, 95% CI 2.35-4.52, P < .001), hemoglobin (WMD 7.23 g/L, 95% CI 5.87-8.59, P < .001), and total protein (WMD 5.13 g/L, 95% CI 3.7-6.56, P < .001). No significant differences were observed in prealbumin and gastrointestinal adverse reactions. Physical (WMD 8.82, 95% CI 6.69-10.95, P < .001) and role function (WMD 12.23, 95% CI 2.72-21.74, P = .01) were also significantly better in the HEN group. The nausea/vomiting (WMD -5.43, 95% CI -8.29 to -2.57, P = .002) and fatigue symptoms (WMD -11.76, 95% CI -16.21 to -7.32, P < .001) were significantly reduced. Appetite loss (WMD -8.48, 95% CI -14.27 to -4.88, P = .001), diarrhea (WMD -3.9, 95% CI -7.37 to -0.43, P = .03), and sleep disturbance (WMD -7.64, 95% CI -12.79 to -2.5, P = .004) in the HEN group were also significantly less than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

HEN improved nutrition status, physical and role function, and reduced nausea/vomiting, fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhea, and sleep disturbance compared with an oral diet in esophageal cancer patients postsurgery. HEN did not increase adverse reactions.

Feasibility, safety and outcome of endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with esophageal cancer

Introduction

Background and aims: esophageal cancer (EC) is an important health problem worldwide with high morbidity and mortality. EC patients are likely to develop malnutrition. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding in EC cancer, and to identify risk factors associated with poor prognosis. Methods: a retrospective observational study was performed using records from EC patients referred for PEG. Age, gender, cancer histologic subtype, indication for gastrostomy, and mortality data were recorded. NRS 2002, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin, serum albumin, transferrin and total cholesterol were collected at the day of PEG. An association between anthropometric, clinical and laboratorial data with patient survival was assessed. Results: data were obtained for forty-one EC patients (36 men and 5 women) aged 39-88 years (mean, 62 years). Gastrostomy was possible in all patients referred to PEG (27 patients selected for curative treatment and 14 patients for palliative nutrition). No major complications occurred. Mean survival after PEG was 18.1 months, and mortality rate at 3 months was 31.7 %. Most patients (34; 82.9 %) died under PEG feeding. Mean BMI was 21.3 kg/m2 and 14 patients (34.1 %) patients had low BMI. Serum albumin, transferrin and total cholesterol were low in 10 (24.4 %), 20 (48.8 %) and 18 (43.9 %) patients, respectively. Higher BMI (R = 0.30), serum albumin (R = 0.41) and transferrin (R = 0.47) tended to be positively correlated with survival (p < 0.005). Conclusions: PEG is a feasible and safe technique for enteral feeding in EC patients. Higher BMI, serum albumin and transferrin levels at admission predict a better outcome. Enteral feeding through PEG should be considered early in EC patients due to their higher risk of malnutrition, which is associated with shorter survival.

Jejunostomy at the time of esophagectomy is associated with improved short-term perioperative outcomes: analysis of the NSQIP database

Adequate preoperative and perioperative nutrition has been shown to improve outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy. The most effective way to provide enteral nutrition for patients after esophagectomy is via jejunostomy tube. There is an open debate whether a feeding jejunostomy tube is necessary at the time of esophagectomy. This study evaluated short term surgical outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy with and without concurrent jejunostomy tube placement. Esophageal cancer patients were identified from the NSQIP database who underwent esophagectomy between 2005 through 2016. Patients were classified into 2 cohorts: patients with concurrent jejunostomy tube placement and those without jejunostomy placement at the time of esophagectomy. Clinical and demographic data was collected. Differences in short term outcomes were assessed by univariate and multivariable analysis, including prolonged hospital stay (>30 days), in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality for both cohorts. We identified 8,632 patients that underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with 80% males and mean age of 63.2±10.6 years. Twenty percent (n=1,723) had preoperative weight loss in the 6-month period preceding surgery. Forty-five percent (n=3,900) patients had jejunostomy placement at the time of esophagectomy. Overall, the rate of prolonged hospital stay (P=0.006), in-hospital mortality (P<0.001) and 30-day mortality (P<0.001) were significantly higher in patients without concurrent jejunostomy in both univariable and multivariable models. This study demonstrates that patients with jejunostomy placement at the time of esophagectomy have improved short term perioperative outcomes.

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.