E Asti1, M Sozzi1, G Bonitta1, D Bernardi1, L Bonavina2. 1. University of Milan, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Division of General Surgery, 20097 San Donato Milanese (Milano), Italy. 2. University of Milan, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Division of General Surgery, 20097 San Donato Milanese (Milano), Italy. Electronic address: luigi.bonavina@unimi.it.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with esophageal carcinoma and concomitant liver cirrhosis carry a high operative risk and may be denied esophagectomy. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to investigate postoperative outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Studies reporting outcomes after esophagectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis were searched in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus until June 2017, matching the terms "liver cirrhosis", "esophageal neoplasm" and/or "esophageal surgery". Extracted data included study characteristics, demographic and clinical patient characteristics, type of surgical procedure, and postoperative outcomes. A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS: Five observational, retrospective and single-arm studies with a total of 157 patients were included. The main cause of death was liver failure followed by pneumonia/sepsis and anastomotic leak. Ascites and pleural effusion were the most frequent postoperative complications (pooled rates 36% and 34%, respectively). The pooled morbidity rate was 74% (95% HPD=46-81%) while the pooled mortality was 18% (95% HPD=17-27%). Study heterogeneity (τ2) was low, ranging from 0.046 to 0.080. An incidental diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was reported in 15.6% of patients in one series. Five-year survival was similar between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients but was statistically significantly higher in patients with MELD score<10. CONCLUSIONS: Sound scientific evidence with regard to efficacy and outcomes of esophagectomy in patients with concomitant liver cirrhosis is lacking. There is a need to properly select these frail patients to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality rates.
INTRODUCTION:Patients with esophageal carcinoma and concomitant liver cirrhosis carry a high operative risk and may be denied esophagectomy. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to investigate postoperative outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Studies reporting outcomes after esophagectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis were searched in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus until June 2017, matching the terms "liver cirrhosis", "esophageal neoplasm" and/or "esophageal surgery". Extracted data included study characteristics, demographic and clinical patient characteristics, type of surgical procedure, and postoperative outcomes. A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS: Five observational, retrospective and single-arm studies with a total of 157 patients were included. The main cause of death was liver failure followed by pneumonia/sepsis and anastomotic leak. Ascites and pleural effusion were the most frequent postoperative complications (pooled rates 36% and 34%, respectively). The pooled morbidity rate was 74% (95% HPD=46-81%) while the pooled mortality was 18% (95% HPD=17-27%). Study heterogeneity (τ2) was low, ranging from 0.046 to 0.080. An incidental diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was reported in 15.6% of patients in one series. Five-year survival was similar between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients but was statistically significantly higher in patients with MELD score<10. CONCLUSIONS: Sound scientific evidence with regard to efficacy and outcomes of esophagectomy in patients with concomitant liver cirrhosis is lacking. There is a need to properly select these frail patients to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality rates.
Authors: Julia K Grass; Natalie Küsters; Marius Kemper; Jan Tintrup; Felix Piecha; Jakob R Izbicki; Daniel Perez; Nathaniel Melling; Maximilian Bockhorn; Matthias Reeh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.240