Dataset Information

Epidural analgesia and mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: A retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Epidural analgesia (EA) has been the standard of care after major abdominal surgery for many years. This study aimed to correlate EA with postoperative complications, short- and long-term mortality in patients with and without EA after open surgery (OS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patient, clinical and outcome data were obtained from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and the Swedish Perioperative Registry. All adult patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer without metastases who underwent elective curative MIS or OS for colorectal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 and who had data recorded in both registries, were included in the study. Data were analyzed for OS and MIS procedures separately. A Poisson regression model was used to investigate the association between EA and the outcomes of interest.

Results

Five thousand seven hundred sixty-two patients were included in the study, 2712 in the MIS and 3050 patients in the OS group. After adjusting for patient specific and clinically relevant variables in the regression model, no statistically significant difference in risk for complications; 30-day, 90-day, and up to 3-year mortality following either MIS or OS could be detected between the EA+ and EA-cohorts.

Conclusions

In this large study cohort, EA as part of the comprehensive care provided was not associated with a reduction in postoperative complications risk or improved 30-day, 90-day, or 3-year survival after MIS or OS for colorectal cancer.

SUBMITTER: Falk W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8170121 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEsophagectomy for esophageal cancer carries high morbidity and mortality, particularly in older patients. Transthoracic esophagectomy allows formal lymphadenectomy, but leads to greater perioperative morbidity and pain than transhiatal esophagectomy. Epidural analgesia may attenuate the stress response and be less immunosuppressive than opioids, potentially affecting long-term outcomes. These potential benefits may be more pronounced for transthoracic esophagectomy due to its greater physiologic impact. We evaluated the impact of epidural analgesia on survival and recurrence after transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients aged ?66 years with locoregional esophageal cancer diagnosed 1994-2009 who underwent esophagectomy were identified, with follow-up through December 31, 2013. Epidural receipt and surgical approach were identified from Medicare claims. Survival analyses adjusting for hospital esophagectomy volume, surgical approach, and epidural use were performed. A subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma patients was performed.ResultsAmong 1,921 patients, 38% underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 730) and 62% underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (n = 1,191). 61% (n = 1,169) received epidurals and 39% (n = 752) did not. Epidural analgesia was associated with transthoracic approach and higher volume hospitals. Patients with epidural analgesia had better 90-day survival. Five-year survival was higher with transhiatal esophagectomy (37.2%) than transthoracic esophagectomy (31.0%, p = 0.006). Among transthoracic esophagectomy patients, epidural analgesia was associated with improved 5-year survival (33.5% epidural versus 26.5% non-epidural, p = 0.012; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.70, 0.93]). Among the subgroup of esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, epidural analgesia remained associated with improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.96]); this survival benefit persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for propensity to receive an epidural.ConclusionAmong patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, including a subgroup restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma, epidural analgesia was associated with improved survival even after adjusting for other factors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Our study aimed to compare the outcomes of surgical treatment of tongue cancer patients in three different age groups. METHODS:From 2004 to 2013, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 1,712 patients who were treated in the four institutions constituting the Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals (CGMH). We divided and studied the patients in three age groups: Group 1, younger (<65 years); Group 2, young old (65 to <75); and Group 3, older old patients (?75 years). RESULTS:Multivariate analyses determined the unfavorable, independent prognostic factors of overall survival to be male sex, older age, advanced stage, advanced T, N classifications, and surgery plus chemotherapy. No significant differences were found in adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of death in early-stage disease (stage I-II) among Group 1 (HR 1.0), Group 2 (HR 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.87-2.34], p = 0.158), and Group 3 (HR 1.22, 95% CI [0.49-3.03], p = 0.664) patients. However, amongst advanced-stage patients (stage (III-IV)), Group 3 (HR 2.53, 95% CI [1.46-4.38], p = 0.001) showed significantly worse survival than the other two groups after other variables were adjusted for. Fourteen out of 21 older old, advanced-staged patients finally died, and most of the mortalities were non-cancerogenic (9/14, 64.3%), and mostly occurred within one year (12/14, 85%) after cancer diagnosis. These non-cancer cause of death included underlying diseases in combination with infection, pneumonia, poor nutrition status, and trauma. CONCLUSIONS:Our study showed that advanced T classification (T3-4), positive nodal metastasis (N1-3) and poorly differentiated tumor predicted poor survival for all patients. Outcome of early-stage patients (stage I-II) among three age groups were not significantly different. However, for advanced-stage patients (stage III-IV), the older old patients (?75) had significantly worse survival than the other two patient groups. Therefore, for early-stage patients, age should not deny them to receive optimal treatments. However, older old patients (?75) with advanced cancer should be comprehensively assessed by geriatric tools before surgical treatment and combined with intensive postoperative care to improve outcome, especially the unfavorable non-cancerogenic mortalities within one year after cancer diagnosis.