| Literature DB >> 25550708 |
Renee L Arlow1, Dirk F Moore2, Chunxia Chen2, John Langenfeld3, David A August1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to describe the system and technical factors that enabled our moderate size transhiatal esophagectomy program to achieve low mortality rates.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal cancer; Esophagectomy; Failure to rescue; Outcome-volume relationships; Postoperative complication; Quality improvement
Year: 2014 PMID: 25550708 PMCID: PMC4279687 DOI: 10.1186/s13022-014-0009-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Surg Innov Res ISSN: 1750-1164
Figure 1Timeline for the introduction of technical changes.
Figure 2Number of esophagectomies completed per year.
Patient demographics and pre-operative characteristics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male: Female | 5:1 | 6:1 | 5:1 | 4:1 | 9:1 | 0.41 |
| Median age at operation, years (range) | 62 (40-82) | 62 (46-82) | 62 (40-77) | 62 (40-80) | 64 (46-80) | 0.54 |
| Smoking history (%) | 74 | 82 | 78 | 72 | 62 | 0.12 |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m2) | 27.6 | 27.9 | 26.9 | 28.4 | 27.3 | 0.63 |
| Mean pre-operative albumin (g/dL) | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 0.054 |
| 1 or more comorbidities (%)† | 62 | 60 | 60 | 56 | 70 | 0.52 |
| Histology (%)‡ | 0.06 | |||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 60 | 82 | 80 | 74 | 74 | |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 16 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 13 | |
| High grade dysplasia / CIS | 18 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 9 | |
| Other | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Pre-Operative Stage (%)§ | 0.40 | |||||
| 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| I | 18 | 2 | 26 | 20 | 24 | |
| II | 11 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 22 | |
| III | 27 | 10 | 34 | 34 | 28 | |
| IV | 3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | |
| Unknown | 41 | 82 | 32 | 30 | 20 | |
| Post-Operative Stage (%) | 0.51 | |||||
| 0 | 26 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 23 | |
| I | 22 | 40 | 16 | 26 | 26 | |
| II | 24 | 18 | 32 | 22 | 24 | |
| III | 28 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 23 | |
| IV | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| Neoadjuvant therapy (%) | 60 | 40 | 56 | 68 | 74 | 0.003* |
CIS – carcinoma in situ.
Group 1 = cases 1 – 50.
Group 2 = cases 51 – 100.
Group 3 = cases 101 – 150.
Group 4 = cases 151-200.
†Patients who met the following criteria were considered to have a comorbid condition: a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease or stroke; a diagnosis of hypertension or current treatment with an anti-hypertensive medication; a diagnosis of coronary artery disease or history of coronary artery stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery; and a history of previous deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.
‡For histology, other includes: gastrointestinal stromal tumor, melanoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma with neuroendocrine features.
§All esophagectomy patients who were considered stage IV preoperatively had celiac lymph node disease on endoscopic ultrasound (n = 6). Patients were reported to have unknown preoperative staging if the endoscopic ultrasound report was missing from their hospital chart.
*p < 0.05
Number of cases with a post-operative complication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastomotic leak | 27 (14%) | 10 (20%) | 5 (10%) | 5 (10%) | 7 (14%) | 0.43 |
| Chyle leak | 11 (6%) | 1 (2%) | 6 (12%) | 3 (6%) | 1 (2%) | 0.09 |
| Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (temporary or permanent) | 13 (7%) | 4 (8%) | 4 (8%) | 2 (4%) | 3 (6%) | 0.82 |
| Ventilator dependent respiratory failure | 29 (15%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (16%) | 4 (8%) | 0.51 |
| Pneumonia or sepsis | 25 (13%) | 5 (10%) | 9 (18%) | 9 (18%) | 2 (4%) | 0.10 |
| Pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis | 9 (4%) | 5 (10%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (4%) | 0.18 |
| Myocardial infarction | 4 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (6%) | 1 (2%) | 0.11 |
| 1 or more major† | 61 (31%) | 18 (36%) | 17 (35%) | 14 (28%) | 12 (24%) | 0.56 |
Group 1 = cases 1 – 50.
Group 2 = cases 51 – 100.
Group 3 = cases 101 – 150.
Group 4 = cases 151 – 200.
†1 or more major complication(s) include at least one of the following: anastomotic leak, chyle leak, ventilator dependent respiratory failure and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury.
Univariate analysis of perioperative and postoperative outcomes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Cases | 5.5 | 500 | 7 | 31 | 0 (0-89) | 8.5 (5-107) | 41 | 76 |
| Group 1† | 5.7 | 600 | 8 | 36 | 2 (0-89) | 9 (6-89) | 80 | 80 |
| Group 2‡ | 5.6 | 500 | 4 | 35 | 0 (0-27) | 9 (6-46) | 27 | 84 |
| Group 3§ | 5.5 | 450 | 6 | 28 | 0 (0-52) | 8.5 (5-107) | 34 | 70 |
| Group 4¶ | 5.3 | 400 | 8 | 24 | 0 (0-18) | 8 (6-30) | 22 | 68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wide conduit | 5.8 | 600 | 7 | 35 | 2 (0-89) | 9 (6-89) | 80 | 80 |
| Narrow conduit | 5.5 | 450 | 6 | 30 | 0 (0-52) | 8 (5-107) | 29 | 74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Before LigaSure | 5.7 | 600 | 9 | 37 | 2 (0-89) | 9 (6-89) | 73 | 83 |
| After LigaSure | 5.4 | 450 | 5 | 28 | 0 (0-52) | 8 (5-107) | 26 | 71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBL – estimated blood loss; ICU – intensive care unit; OR – operating room.
†Group 1 = cases 1 – 50.
‡Group 2 = cases 51 – 100.
§Group 3 = cases 101 – 150.
¶Group 4 = cases 151 – 200.
*p < 0.05.
Multivariate analysis of influence of factors on number of patient requiring any intensive care unit (ICU) stay
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Number of patients requiring any ICU stay | Chronologic Group | 0.95 |
| Narrow conduit/Mediastinal Stenting | 0.045* | |
| LigaSure | 0.06 |
ICU – intensive care unit.
* – statistically significant P-value.