1
|
Ubels S, Matthée E, Verstegen M, Klarenbeek B, Bouwense S, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Daams F, Dekker JWT, van Det MJ, van Esser S, Griffiths EA, Haveman JW, Nieuwenhuijzen G, Siersema PD, Wijnhoven B, Hannink G, van Workum F, Rosman C, Heisterkamp J, Polat F, Schouten J, Singh P, Eshuis WJ, Kalff MC, Feenstra ML, van der Peet DL, Stam WT, Van Etten B, Poelmann F, Vuurberg N, Willem van den Berg J, Martijnse IS, Matthijsen RM, Luyer M, Curvers W, Nieuwenhuijzen T, Taselaar AE, Kouwenhoven EA, Lubbers M, Sosef M, Lecot F, Geraedts TC, van den Wildenberg F, Kelder W, Lubbers M, Baas PC, de Haas JW, Hartgrink HH, Bahadoer RR, van Sandick JW, Hartemink KJ, Veenhof X, Stockmann H, Gorgec B, Weeder P, Wiezer MJ, Genders CM, Belt E, Blomberg B, van Duijvendijk P, Claassen L, Reetz D, Steenvoorde P, Mastboom W, Klein Ganseij HJ, van Dalsen AD, Joldersma A, Zwakman M, Groenendijk RP, Montazeri M, Mercer S, Knight B, van Boxel G, McGregor RJ, Skipworth RJ, Frattini C, Bradley A, Nilsson M, Hayami M, Huang B, Bundred J, Evans R, Grimminger PP, van der Sluis PC, Eren U, Saunders J, Theophilidou E, Khanzada Z, Elliott JA, Ponten J, King S, Reynolds JV, Sgromo B, Akbari K, Shalaby S, Gutschow CA, Schmidt H, Vetter D, Moorthy K, Ibrahim MA, Christodoulidis G, Räsänen JV, Kauppi J, Söderström H, Koshy R, Manatakis DK, Korkolis DP, Balalis D, Rompu A, Alkhaffaf B, Alasmar M, Arebi M, Piessen G, Nuytens F, Degisors S, Ahmed A, Boddy A, Gandhi S, Fashina O, Van Daele E, Pattyn P, Robb WB, Arumugasamy M, Al Azzawi M, Whooley J, Colak E, Aybar E, Sari AC, Uyanik MS, Ciftci AB, Sayyed R, Ayub B, Murtaza G, Saeed A, Ramesh P, Charalabopoulos A, Liakakos T, Schizas D, Baili E, Kapelouzou A, Valmasoni M, Pierobon ES, Capovilla G, Merigliano S, Constantinoiu S, Birla R, Achim F, Rosianu CG, Hoara P, Castro RG, Salcedo AF, Negoi I, Negoita VM, Ciubotaru C, Stoica B, Hostiuc S, Colucci N, Mönig SP, Wassmer CH, Meyer J, Takeda FR, Aissar Sallum RA, Ribeiro U, Cecconello I, Toledo E, Trugeda MS, Fernández MJ, Gil C, Castanedo S, Isik A, Kurnaz E, Videira JF, Peyroteo M, Canotilho R, Weindelmayer J, Giacopuzzi S, De Pasqual CA, Bruna M, Mingol F, Vaque J, Pérez C, Phillips AW, Chmelo J, Brown J, Koshy R, Han LE, Gossage JA, Davies AR, Baker CR, Kelly M, Saad M, Bernardi D, Bonavina L, Asti E, Riva C, Scaramuzzo R, Elhadi M, Ahmed HA, Elhadi A, Elnagar FA, Msherghi AA, Wills V, Campbell C, Cerdeira MP, Whiting S, Merrett N, Das A, Apostolou C, Lorenzo A, Sousa F, Barbosa JA, Devezas V, Barbosa E, Fernandes C, Smith G, Li EY, Bhimani N, Chan P, Kotecha K, Hii MW, Ward SM, Johnson M, Read M, Chong L, Hollands MJ, Allaway M, Richardson A, Johnston E, Chen AZ, Kanhere H, Prasad S, McQuillan P, Surman T, Trochsler M, Schofield W, Ahmed SK, Reid JL, Harris MC, Gananadha S, Farrant J, Rodrigues N, Fergusson J, Hindmarsh A, Afzal Z, Safranek P, Sujendran V, Rooney S, Loureiro C, Fernández SL, Díez del Val I, Jaunoo S, Kennedy L, Hussain A, Theodorou D, Triantafyllou T, Theodoropoulos C, Palyvou T, Elhadi M, Ben Taher FA, Ekheel M, Msherghi AA. Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue. Eur J Surg Oncol 2023; 49:974-982. [PMID: 36732207 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2022] [Revised: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 01/11/2023] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Failure to rescue (FTR) is an important outcome measure after esophagectomy and reflects mortality after postoperative complications. Differences in FTR have been associated with hospital resection volume. However, insight into how centers manage complications and achieve their outcomes is lacking. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a main contributor to FTR. This study aimed to assess differences in FTR after AL between centers, and to identify factors that explain these differences. METHODS TENTACLE - Esophagus is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, which included 1509 patients with AL after esophagectomy. Differences in FTR were assessed between low-volume (<20 resections), middle-volume (20-60 resections) and high-volume centers (≥60 resections). Mediation analysis was performed using logistic regression, including possible mediators for FTR: case-mix, hospital resources, leak severity and treatment. RESULTS FTR after AL was 11.7%. After adjustment for confounders, FTR was lower in high-volume vs. low-volume (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2-0.8), but not versus middle-volume centers (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.5-1.0). After mediation analysis, differences in FTR were found to be explained by lower leak severity, lower secondary ICU readmission rate and higher availability of therapeutic modalities in high-volume centers. No statistically significant direct effect of hospital volume was found: high-volume vs. low-volume 0.86 (95%CI 0.4-1.7), high-volume vs. middle-volume OR 0.86 (95%CI 0.5-1.4). CONCLUSION Lower FTR in high-volume compared with low-volume centers was explained by lower leak severity, less secondary ICU readmissions and higher availability of therapeutic modalities. To reduce FTR after AL, future studies should investigate effective strategies to reduce leak severity and prevent secondary ICU readmission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sander Ubels
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Eric Matthée
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Moniek Verstegen
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Bastiaan Klarenbeek
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Stefan Bouwense
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marc J van Det
- Department of Surgery, ZGT Hospital Group, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | - Stijn van Esser
- Department of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Jan Willem Haveman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Peter D Siersema
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Bas Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gerjon Hannink
- Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Frans van Workum
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Camiel Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Fatih Polat
- Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Schouten
- Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Pritam Singh
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gobardhan PD, Elias SG, Madsen EVE, van Wely B, van den Wildenberg F, Theunissen EBM, Ernst MF, Kokke MC, van der Pol C, Borel Rinkes IHM, Wijsman JH, Bongers V, van Gorp J, van Dalen T. Prognostic value of lymph node micrometastases in breast cancer: a multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 18:1657-64. [PMID: 21153885 PMCID: PMC3087878 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1451-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2010] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Background To evaluate the prognostic meaning of lymph node micrometastases in breast cancer patients. Methods Between January 2000 and January 2003, 1411 patients with a cT1-2N0 invasive breast carcinoma underwent surgery in 7 hospitals in the Netherlands. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was done in all patients. Based on lymph node status, patients were divided into 4 groups: pN0 (n = 922), pN1micro (n = 103), pN1a (n = 285), and pN≥1b (n = 101). Median follow-up was 6.4 years. Results At the end of follow-up, 1121 women were still alive (79.4%), 184 had died (13.0%), and 106 were lost to follow-up (7.5%). Breast cancer recurred in 244 patients: distant metastasis (n = 165), locoregional relapse (n = 83), and contralateral breast cancer (n = 44). Following adjustment for possible confounding characteristics and for adjuvant systemic treatment, overall survival (OS) remained comparable for pN0 and pN1micro and was significantly worse for pN1a and pN≥1b (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.58–2.39, HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.69–3.63, HR 4.36; 95% CI 2.70–7.04, respectively). Disease-free survival (DFS) was similar too in the pN0 and pN1micro group, and worse for pN1a and pN≥1b (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.56–1.67 vs HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.19–2.27, HR 2.95; CI 1.98–4.42). The distant metastases rate also did not differ significantly between the pN0 and pN1micro group and was worse for pN1a and pN≥1b (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.60–2.49, HR 2.26; 95% CI 1.49–3.40, HR 3.49; CI 2.12–5.77). Conclusions In breast cancer patients survival is not affected by the presence of micrometastatic lymph node involvement. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1245/s10434-010-1451-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul D Gobardhan
- Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|