Literature DB >> 26290638

Diagnostic value of drain amylase for detecting intrathoracic leakage after esophagectomy.

Gijs H K Berkelmans1, Ewout A Kouwenhoven1, Boudewijn J J Smeets1, Teus J Weijs1, Luis C Silva Corten1, Marc J van Det1, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen1, Misha D P Luyer1.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the value of elevated drain amylase concentrations for detecting anastomotic leakage (AL) after minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MI-ILE).
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in two hospitals in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients undergoing MI-ILE were included. A Jackson-Pratt drain next to the dorsal side of the anastomosis and bilateral chest drains were placed at the end of the thoracoscopic procedure. Amylase levels in drain fluid were determined in all patients during at least the first four postoperative days. Contrast computed tomography scans and/or endoscopic imaging were performed in cases of a clinically suspected AL. Anastomotic leakage was defined as any sign of leakage of the esophago-gastric anastomosis on endoscopy, re-operation, radiographic investigations, post mortal examination or when gastro-intestinal contents were found in drain fluid. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to determine the cut-off values. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, risk ratio and overall test accuracy were calculated for elevated drain amylase concentrations.
RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were included between March 2013 and August 2014. No differences in group characteristics were observed between patients with and without AL, except for age. Patients with AL were older than were patients without AL (P = 0.01). One patient (1.1%) without AL died within 30 d after surgery due to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anastomotic leakage that required any intervention occurred in 15 patients (16.9%). Patients with proven anastomotic leakage had higher drain amylase levels than patients without anastomotic leakage [median 384 IU/L (IQR 34-6263) vs median 37 IU/L (IQR 26-66), P = 0.003]. Optimal cut-off values on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 were 350 IU/L, 200 IU/L and 160 IU/L, respectively. An elevated amylase level was found in 9 of the 15 patients with AL. Five of these 9 patients had early elevations of their amylase levels, with a median of 2 d (IQR 2-5) before signs and symptoms occurred.
CONCLUSION: Measurement of drain amylase levels is an inexpensive and easy tool that may be used to screen for anastomotic leakage soon after MI-ILE. However, clinical validation of this marker is necessary.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amylase; Anastomotic leakage; Drain fluid; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal surgery

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26290638      PMCID: PMC4533043          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i30.9118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  28 in total

1.  Intrathoracic leaks following esophagectomy are no longer associated with increased mortality.

Authors:  Linda W Martin; Stephen G Swisher; Wayne Hofstetter; Arlene M Correa; Reza J Mehran; David C Rice; Ara A Vaporciyan; Garrett L Walsh; Jack A Roth
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  The prevention and management of perioperative complications.

Authors:  Arnulf H Hölscher; Daniel Vallböhmer; Jan Brabender
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.043

3.  The usefulness of drain data to identify a clinically relevant pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Authors:  Hiroyuki Shinchi; Keita Wada; L William Traverso
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position--experience of 130 patients.

Authors:  Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Anand Prakash; Rangaswamy Senthilkumar; Palanisamy Senthilnathan; Ramakrishnan Parthasarathi; Pidigu Seshiyer Rajan; S Venkatachlam
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Gastric tonometry and drain amylase analysis in the detection of cervical oesophagogastric leakage.

Authors:  A Machens; C Busch; H Bause; J R Izbicki
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 6.  Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery.

Authors:  J Bruce; Z H Krukowski; G Al-Khairy; E M Russell; K G Park
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Does drainage fluid amylase reflect pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Authors:  Yi-Ming Shyr; Cheng-Hsi Su; Chew-Wun Wu; Wing-Yiu Lui
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2003-04-28       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy in 1,507 patients: a report from the Pancreatic Anastomotic Leak Study Group.

Authors:  Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; Michael B Farnell; Stefano Crippa; Matthew Barnett; George Maupin; Claudio Bassi; L William Traverso
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Pancreatoduodenectomy: role of drain fluid analysis in the management of pancreatic fistula.

Authors:  Justin Kong; Sivakumar Gananadha; Thomas J Hugh; Jaswinder S Samra
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.872

10.  The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Authors:  Nabil P Rizk; Peter B Bach; Deborah Schrag; Manjit S Bains; Alan D Turnbull; Martin Karpeh; Murray F Brennan; Valerie W Rusch
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.113

View more
  4 in total

1.  Abdominal Drainage and Amylase Measurement for Detection of Leakage After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

Authors:  Judith P M Schots; Misha D P Luyer; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations.

Authors:  Donald E Low; William Allum; Giovanni De Manzoni; Lorenzo Ferri; Arul Immanuel; MadhanKumar Kuppusamy; Simon Law; Mats Lindblad; Nick Maynard; Joseph Neal; C S Pramesh; Mike Scott; B Mark Smithers; Valérie Addor; Olle Ljungqvist
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Perianastomotic drainage in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, does habit affect utility? An 11-year single-center experience.

Authors:  C A De Pasqual; J Weindelmayer; S Laiti; R La Mendola; M Bencivenga; L Alberti; S Giacopuzzi; G de Manzoni
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2019-08-13

Review 4.  Patient-Related Prognostic Factors for Anastomotic Leakage, Major Complications, and Short-Term Mortality Following Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

Authors:  Robert T van Kooten; Daan M Voeten; Ewout W Steyerberg; Henk H Hartgrink; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Michel W J M Wouters
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-05       Impact factor: 5.344

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.