Dataset Information

Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).

Methods

The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up.

Results

The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013).

Conclusion

Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.

SUBMITTER: Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midlands Research Collaborative

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8140199 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:DescriptionThis update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.MethodsAn international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.RecommendationsPreendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Project description:For esophageal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) is often used as a quality indicator. The aim of this study is to analyze the number of retrieved LNs in The Netherlands, assess factors associated with LN yield, and explore the association with short-term outcomes. This is a population-based study on lymph node retrieval in patients with esophageal cancer, presenting results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.For this retrospective national cohort study, patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy between 2011 and 2016 were included. The primary outcome was the number of retrieved LNs. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to test for association with ? 15 LNs.3970 patients were included. Between 2011 and 2016, the median number of LNs increased from 15 to 20. Factors independently associated with ? 15 LNs were: 0-10 kg preoperative weight loss (versus: unknown weight loss, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.71 [0.57-0.88]), Charlson score 0 (versus: Charlson score 2: 0.76 [0.63-0.92]), cN2 category (reference: cN0, 1.32 [1.05-1.65]), no neoadjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (reference: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 1.73 [1.29-2.32] and 2.15 [1.54-3.01]), minimally invasive transthoracic (reference: open transthoracic, 1.46 [1.15-1.85]), open transthoracic (versus open and minimally invasive transhiatal, 0.29 [0.23-0.36] and 0.43 [0.32-0.59]), hospital volume of 26-50 or > 50 resections/year (reference: 0-25, 1.94 [1.55-2.42] and 3.01 [2.36-3.83]), and year of surgery [reference: 2011, odds ratios (ORs) 1.48, 1.53, 2.28, 2.44, 2.54]. There was no association of ? 15 LNs with short-term outcomes.The number of LNs retrieved increased between 2011 and 2016. Weight loss, Charlson score, cN category, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical approach, year of resection, and hospital volume were all associated with increased LN yield. Retrieval of ? 15 LNs was not associated with increased postoperative morbidity/mortality.

Project description:BackgroundThe choice of anastomosis technique after esophagectomy is closely associated with the postoperative complications. Whether circular stapled or linear stapled anastomosis is the optimal technique has not been established. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to show the latest and most comprehensive published assessment of circular stapled anastomosis in comparison with linear stapled anastomosis in postoperative complications.MethodsDatabases (PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library) were searched for all randomized controlled trials and comparative studies comparing circular stapled anastomosis with linear stapled anastomosis after esophagectomy. The odd ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated. We used the Higgins I² statistics to assess the statistical heterogeneity between studies. Review manager (version 5.4) software was used in this analysis.ResultsSixteen studies with 2322 patients were included in our study. The study demonstrated that the use of linear stapled technique after esophagectomy could reduce the risk of both anastomotic leakage (P = 0.0003) and stricture (P < 0.00001) compared with circular stapled technique. Stratification by anastomotic site showed that no matter what kind of anastomotic site (cervical or thoracic anastomosis) was used, linear stapled anastomosis could effectively reduce the anastomotic stricture in comparison with circular stapled anastomosis. Moreover, linear stapled anastomosis could decrease the risk of thoracic anastomotic leakage. There were no significant differences between circle stapled anastomosis and linear stapled anastomosis in reflux esophagitis (P = 0.17), pneumonia (P = 0.91), operation time (P = 0.41) and hospital stay (P = 0.38).ConclusionsThe study suggested that linear stapled anastomosis could be considered to be an optimal treatment associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leakage and stricture in comparison with circular stapled anastomosis.