Anesthetic management for esophageal resection

Restrictive intraoperative fluid management was associated with higher incidence of composite complications compared to less restrictive strategies in open thoracotomy: A retrospective cohort study

Restrictive fluid management has been recommended for thoracic surgery. However, specific guidelines are lacking, and there is always concern regarding impairment of renal perfusion with a restrictive policy. The objective of this study was to find the net intraoperative fluid infusion rate which shows the lowest incidence of composite complications (either pulmonary complications or acute kidney injury) in open thoracotomy. We hypothesized that a certain range of infusion rate would decrease the composite complications within postoperative 30 days. All patients (n = 1,031) who underwent open thoracotomy at a tertiary care university hospital were included in this retrospective study. The time frame of fluid monitoring was from the start of operation to postoperative 24 hours. The cutoff value of the intraoperative net fluid amount was 4–5 ml.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ according to the minimum p-value method, thus, patients were divided into Low (≤3 ml.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹), Cutoff (4–5 ml.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹) and High (≥6 ml.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹) groups. The Cutoff group showed the lowest composite complication rate (19%, 12%, and 13% in the Low, Cutoff, and High groups, respectively, P = 0.0283; Low vs. Cutoff, P = 0.0324, Bonferroni correction). Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred least frequently in the Cutoff group (7%, 3%, and 6% for the Low, Cutoff, and High groups, respectively, P = 0.0467; Low vs. Cutoff, P = 0.0432, Bonferroni correction). In multivariable analysis, intraoperative net fluid infusion rate was associated with composite complications, and the Cutoff group decreased risk (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.35–0.81, P = 0.0035). In conclusion, maintaining intraoperative net fluid infusion at 4–5 ml.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ was associated with better results in open thoracotomy, in terms of composite complications, compared to more restrictive fluid management.

The effect of preventive use of corticosteroids on postoperative complications after esophagectomy: A retrospective cohort study

Corticosteroids have been empirically administered to reduce the rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after esophagectomy. However, their efficacy remains controversial, and corticosteroids may increase the risk of graft dehiscence and infection, which are major concerns after esophagectomy. Therefore, we compared the incidence of composite complications (ARDS, graft dehiscence and infection) after esophagectomy between patients who received a preventive administration of corticosteroids and those who did not. All patients who underwent esophagectomy from 2010 to 2015 at a tertiary care university hospital were reviewed retrospectively (n = 980). Patients were divided into Steroid (n = 120) and Control (n = 860) groups based on the preventive administration of 100 mg hydrocortisone during surgery. The primary endpoint was the incidence of composite complications. The incidence of composite complications was not different between the Control and Steroid groups (17.4% vs. 21.7% respectively; P = 0.26). The incidence rates of complications in each category were not different between the Control and Steroid groups: ARDS (3.8% vs. 5.0%; P = 0.46), graft dehiscence (4.8% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.37), and infection (12.8% vs. 15.8%; P = 0.36). Propensity score matching revealed that composite complications (20.0% vs. 21.7%; P = 0.75), ARDS (4.3% vs. 5.2%; P = 0.76) and infection (16.5% vs. 15.7%; P = 0.86) were not different between the Control and Steroid group, but the incidence of graft dehiscence was higher in the Steroid group than in the Control group (0.9% vs. 7.0%; P = 0.0175). In conclusions, the preventive use of corticosteroids did not reduce the incidence of ARDS, but may be related to an increased incidence of graft dehiscence. Therefore, routine administration of corticosteroids to prevent ARDS is not recommended in esophagectomy.

A Novel Technique of Paravertebral Thoracic and Preperitoneal Analgesia Enhances Early Recovery After Oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Excellent analgesia following oesophagectomy facilitates patient comfort, early extubation, physiotherapy and mobilisation, reduces post-operative complications and should enhance recovery. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), the gold standard analgesic regimen for this procedure, is often associated with systemic hypotension treated with inotropes or fluid. This may compromise enhanced recovery and be complicated by anastomotic ischaemia or tissue oedema.

METHODS

We report a novel analgesic regimen to reduce post-operative inotrope usage. Infusion of ropivicaine via bilateral preperitoneal and right paravertebral catheters was used. Patient-controlled epidural pethidine provided rescue analgesia (WC) (n = 21). A retrospective audit of inotrope requirement, mean pain scores, episodes of respiratory depression and excessive sedation, need for reintubation, reoperation in the first 5 post-operative days, time to mobilisation, time in intensive care, time in hospital and 30-day mortality were measured. These results were compared with those of an earlier patient group who received a thoracic epidural infusion of low-dose local anaesthetic and fentanyl (TEA) (n = 21).

RESULTS

Inotrope use was reduced by 29% in the WC group (p = 0.03) and the mean intensive care stay reduced by 2.4 days (p = 0.03), as was reintubation rate (p = 0.01) and early mobilisation (p = 0.03). The pain score was comparable in both groups, and there was no difference in the other outcomes examined.

CONCLUSION

The data demonstrated that it was possible to provide excellent post-oesophagectomy analgesia equivalent to thoracic epidural infusions of local anaesthetic with reduction in inotrope requirements, intensive care stay, more rapid mobilisation, facilitating enhanced recovery.

Towards optimal intraoperative conditions in esophageal surgery: A review of literature for the prevention of esophageal anastomotic leakage

BACKGROUND

Esophageal anastomotic leakage (EAL) is a severe complication following gastric and esophageal surgery for cancer. Several non-modifiable, patient or surgery related risk factors for EAL have been identified, however, the contribution of modifiable intraoperative parameters remains undetermined. This review provides an overview of current literature on potentially modifiable intraoperative risk factors for EAL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched by two researchers independently. Clinical studies published in English between 1970 and January 2017 that evaluated the effect of intraoperative parameters on the development of EAL were included. Levels of evidence as defined by the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) were assigned to the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in the final analysis. These articles show evidence that anemia, increased amount of blood loss, low pH and high pCO2 values, prolonged duration of procedure and lack of surgical experience independently increase the risk of EAL. Supplemental oxygen therapy, epidural analgesia and selective digestive decontamination seem to have a beneficial effect. Potential risk factors include blood pressure, requirement of blood products, vasopressor use and glucocorticoid administration, however the results are ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

Apart from fixed surgical and patient related factors, several intraoperative factors that can be modified in clinical practice can influence the risk of developing EAL. More prospective, observational studies are necessary focusing on modifiable intraoperative parameters to assess more evidence and to elucidate optimal values of these factors.

Effect of goal-directed therapy on outcome after esophageal surgery: A quality improvement study

Background

Goal-directed therapy (GDT) can reduce postoperative complications in high-risk surgery patients. It is uncertain whether GDT has the same benefits in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. Goal of this Quality Improvement study was to evaluate the effects of a stroke volume guided GDT on post-operative outcome.

Methods and findings

We compared the postoperative outcome of patients undergoing esophagectomy before (99 patients) and after (100 patients) implementation of GDT. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with a complication (56% vs. 54%, p = 0.82), hospital stay and mortality. The incidence of prolonged ICU stay (>48 hours) was reduced (28% vs. 12, p = .005) in patients treated with GDT. Secondary analysis of complication rate showed a decrease in pneumonia (29 vs. 15%, p = .02), mediastinal abscesses (12 vs. 3%, p = .02), and gastric tube necrosis (5% vs. 0%, p = .03) in patients treated with GDT. Patients in the GDT group received significantly less fluids but received more colloids.

Conclusions

The implementation of GDT during esophagectomy was not associated with reductions in overall morbidity, mortality and hospital length of stay. However, we observed a decrease in pneumonia, mediastinal abscesses, gastric tube necrosis, and ICU length of stay.

Better perioperative outcomes in thoracoscopic-esophagectomy with two-lung ventilation in semi-prone position

BACKGROUND

One-lung ventilation (OLV) anesthesia intubation route is often used in patients undergoing thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position. Recently, the two-lung ventilation (TLV) approach becomes popular. However, limited studies have compared the two ventilation approaches in parallel. Here, we report a single-center, retrospective study of comparing TLV and OLV approach in patients undergoing thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position.

METHODS

From January 2013 to November 2014, 147 patients were enrolled into the current study and were given thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position either by OLV or TLV. Intraoperative respiratory functional data and perioperative surgical parameters of the two approaches were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 147 patients, 64 patients received OLV and 83 patients received TLV, and all of them were successfully under gone thoracoscopic procedures without conversion to open thoracotomy. There was no incidence of major intraoperative complications or perioperative death. There were no statistically different in postoperative respiratory complications, either. However, TLV approach resulted in better intraoperative respiratory function (PaCO₂, PaO₂, SaO₂), shorter preparation time for anesthesia induction, less blood loss, shorter thoracoscopic operating time and less postoperative hospital stay (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative respiratory complications and quantity of the resected thoracic lymph node showed no difference between the two ventilation approach (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that TLV intubation approach is superior to OLV approach during the thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position. According to this, TLV approach is a technically feasible, convenient and safe anesthesia induction approach for esophageal cancer surgery.

Anesthesia for esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is a high-risk operation with significant perioperative morbidity and mortality. Attention to detail in many areas of perioperative management should lead to an aggregation of marginal gains and improvement in postoperative outcome. This review addresses preoperative assessment and patient selection, perioperative care (focusing on pulmonary prehabilitation, ventilation strategies, goal-directed fluid therapy, analgesia, and cardiovascular complications), minimally invasive surgery, and current evidence for enhanced recovery in esophagectomy.

Economic impact of an enhanced recovery pathway for oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Data are lacking to support the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways (ERP) for oesophagectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of an ERP on medical costs for oesophagectomy.

METHODS

This study investigated all patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy between June 2009 and December 2011 at a single high-volume university hospital. From June 2010, all patients were enrolled in an ERP. Clinical outcomes were recorded for up to 30 days. Deviation-based cost modelling was used to compare costs between the traditional care and ERP groups.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included (47 traditional care, 59 ERP). There were no differences in patient, pathological and operative characteristics between the groups. Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was lower in the ERP group (8 (interquartile range 7-18) days versus 10 (9-18) days with traditional care; P = 0·019). There was no difference in 30-day complication rates (59 per cent with ERP versus 62 per cent with traditional care; P = 0·803), and the 30-day or in-hospital mortality rate was low (3·8 per cent, 4 of 106). Costs in the on-course and minor-deviation groups were significantly lower after implementation of the ERP. The pathway-dependent cost saving per patient was €1055 and the overall cost saving per patient was €2013. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ERP was cost-neutral or more costly only at extreme values of ward, operating and intensive care costs.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary ERP for oesophagectomy was associated with cost savings, with no increase in morbidity or mortality.