OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary complications remain a frequent cause of morbidity in patients undergoing oesophagectomy. Risk screening tools assist in patient stratification. Ferguson proposed a risk score system to predict major pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. Our objective was to externally validate this risk score system. METHODS: We analysed our institutional database for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer from August 2009 to December 2012. We analysed patients who had complete documentation of variables used in the Ferguson risk score calculation: forced expiratory volume in the 1 s, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, performance status and age. One hundred and thirty-six patients qualified for analysis in the validation study. Outcome variables measured included major pulmonary complications, defined as need for reintubation for respiratory failure and pneumonia. The risk score was then calculated for each individual based on the model. Incidence of major pulmonary events was assessed in the five risk class groupings to assess the discriminative ability of the Ferguson score. RESULTS: Major pulmonary complications occurred in 35% of patients (47/136). Overall mortality was 6% (8/136). Patients were grouped into five risk categories according to their Ferguson pulmonary risk score: 0-2, 8 patients (6%); 3-4, 24 patients (18%); 5-6, 49 patients (36%); 29 patients (21%); 9-14, 26 patients (19%). The incidence of major pulmonary complications in these categories was 0, 17, 20, 41 and 77%, respectively. The accuracy of the risk score system for predicting major pulmonary complications was 76% (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This pulmonary risk scoring system is a reliable instrument to be used during the preoperative phase to differentiate patients who may be at higher risk for pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. These data can assist in patient selection, and in patient education/informed consent and can guide postoperative management.
OBJECTIVES:Pulmonary complications remain a frequent cause of morbidity in patients undergoing oesophagectomy. Risk screening tools assist in patient stratification. Ferguson proposed a risk score system to predict major pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. Our objective was to externally validate this risk score system. METHODS: We analysed our institutional database for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer from August 2009 to December 2012. We analysed patients who had complete documentation of variables used in the Ferguson risk score calculation: forced expiratory volume in the 1 s, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, performance status and age. One hundred and thirty-six patients qualified for analysis in the validation study. Outcome variables measured included major pulmonary complications, defined as need for reintubation for respiratory failure and pneumonia. The risk score was then calculated for each individual based on the model. Incidence of major pulmonary events was assessed in the five risk class groupings to assess the discriminative ability of the Ferguson score. RESULTS: Major pulmonary complications occurred in 35% of patients (47/136). Overall mortality was 6% (8/136). Patients were grouped into five risk categories according to their Ferguson pulmonary risk score: 0-2, 8 patients (6%); 3-4, 24 patients (18%); 5-6, 49 patients (36%); 29 patients (21%); 9-14, 26 patients (19%). The incidence of major pulmonary complications in these categories was 0, 17, 20, 41 and 77%, respectively. The accuracy of the risk score system for predicting major pulmonary complications was 76% (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This pulmonary risk scoring system is a reliable instrument to be used during the preoperative phase to differentiate patients who may be at higher risk for pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. These data can assist in patient selection, and in patient education/informed consent and can guide postoperative management.
Authors: Robert E Merritt; Richard I Whyte; Nicole T D'Arcy; Chuong D Hoang; Joseph B Shrager Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Karl Y Bilimoria; Martin D McCarter; Joseph D Phillips; Malcolm M DeCamp; Karen L Sherman; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2012-11
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Birat Dhungel; Brian S Diggs; John G Hunter; Brett C Sheppard; John T Vetto; James P Dolan Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Brechtje A Grotenhuis; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Frank Grüne; Jasper van Bommel; Hugo W Tilanus; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Joseph Karam; Athanasios Tsiouris; Alexander Shepard; Vic Velanovich; Ilan Rubinfeld Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: André Dankert; Thorsten Dohrmann; Benjamin Löser; Antonia Zapf; Christian Zöllner; Martin Petzoldt Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 8.251