Impact of surgeon demographics and technique on outcomes after esophageal resections: a nationwide study

Esophagectomies for Malignancy Among General and Thoracic Surgeons: A Propensity Score Matched National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis Stratified by Surgical Approach

Previous studies of esophagectomy outcomes by surgical specialty do not address malignancy or surgical approach. We sought to evaluate these cases using a national database. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)-targeted esophagectomy data set was queried for esophagectomies for malignancy and grouped by surgeon specialty: thoracic surgery (TS) or general surgery (GS). 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Associations of surgical specialty with outcomes of interest (30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3, and positive margin rate) were assessed overall and in surgical approach subsets. 1463 patients met inclusion criteria (512 GS and 951 TS). Propensity score matching yielded matched groups of 512, with similar demographics, preoperative stage, and neoadjuvant therapy rates. All outcomes of interest were similar between TS and GS groups, both overall and when stratified by surgical approach. Esophagectomy for malignancy has a similar perioperative safety profile and positive margin rate among general and thoracic surgeons, regardless of surgical approach.

Comparison of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Plus Chemotherapy versus Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Purpose

This study compares the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (NICT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) combined with radical esophagectomy in patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC).

Patients and Methods

Patients with locally advanced ESCC treated with NICT or NCRT combined with esophagectomy between March 2016 and May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed and propensity score matched (PSM) in a 1:2 ratio to balance potential bias.

Results

After PSM, 110 patients who received NCRT and 55 patients who received NICT were selected for the final analysis. The probability of tumor regression grade 0 and the rate of pathological complete remission (pCR) were significantly higher in the NCRT group than in the NICT group (57.3% vs 32.7%, P=0.003 and 48.2% vs 29.1%, P=0.030, respectively). The incidence of postoperative complications in the NCRT group was not significantly different from that in the NICT group (P=0.082). Patients in the NCRT group had significantly better disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) than those in the NICT group (12-month DFS rate: 94.3% vs 81.8%, P=0.006; 12-month OS rate: 100.0% vs 95.4%, P=0.032). However, the results of the 24-month follow-up showed that there was also a statistically significant difference in DFS between the two groups. Patients with postoperative pCR had a longer DFS (P< 0.001).

Conclusion

Short-term follow-up results show that NCRT has a significantly better pathologic response and prognosis than NICT in the treatment of patients with locally advanced ESCC. NCRT and NICT have similar safety profiles.

Comparable Esophagectomy Outcomes by Surgeon Specialty: A NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

A few observational studies have found that outcomes after esophagectomies by thoracic surgeons are better than those by general surgeons.

METHODS

Non-emergent esophagectomy cases were identified in the 2016-2017 American College of Surgeons NSQIP database. Associations between patient characteristics and outcomes by thoracic versus general surgeons were evaluated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 1,606 cases, 886 (55.2%) were performed by thoracic surgeons. Those patients differed from patients treated by general surgeons in race (other/unknown 19.3% vs 7.8%; P<.001) but not in other baseline characteristics (age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities). Thoracic surgeons performed an open approach more frequently (48.9% vs 30.8%, P<.001) and had operative times that were 30 minutes shorter (P<.001). General surgeons had lower rates of reoperation (11.8% vs 17.2%; P=.003) and were more likely to treat postoperative leak with interventional means (6.3% vs 3.4%, P=.01). Thoracic surgeons were more likely to treat postoperative leak with reoperation (5.9% vs 3.6%, P=.01). There were no other differences in univariate comparison of outcomes between the two groups, including leak, readmission, and death. General surgery specialty was associated with lower risk of reoperation. Our multivariable model also found no relationship between general surgeon and risk of any complication (odds ratio 1.10; 95% CI .86 to 1.42).

DISCUSSION

In our large, national database study, we found that outcomes of esophagectomies by general surgeons were comparable with those by thoracic surgeons. General surgeons managed postoperative leaks differently than thoracic surgeons.

Quality Versus Costs Related to Gastrointestinal Surgery: Disentangling the Value Proposition

BACKGROUND

There has been a dramatic increase in worldwide health care spending over the last several decades. Operative procedures and perioperative care in the USA represent some of the most expensive episodes per patient. In view of both the rising cost of health care in general and the rising cost of surgical care specifically, policymakers and stakeholders have sought to identify ways to increase the value-improving quality of care while controlling (or diminishing) costs. In this context, we reviewed data relative to achieving the "value proposition" in the delivery of gastrointestinal surgical care.

METHODS

The National Library of Medicine online repository (PubMed) was text searched for human studies including "cost," "quality," "outcomes," "health care," "surgery," and "value." Results from this literature framed by the Donabedian conceptual model (identifying structures, processes, and outcomes), and the resulting impact of efforts to improve quality on costs.

RESULTS

The relationship between quality and costs was nuanced. Better quality care, though associated with better outcomes, was not always reported as concomitant with low costs. Moreover, some centers reported higher costs of surgical care commensurate with higher quality. Conversely, higher costs in health care delivery were not always linked to improved outcomes. While higher quality surgical care can lead to lower costs, higher costs of care were not necessarily associated with better outcomes. Strategies to improve quality, reduce cost, or achieve both simultaneously included regionalization of complex operations to high-volume centers of excellence, overall reduction in complications, introducing evidence-based improvements in perioperative care pathways including as enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and elimination of inefficient or low-value care.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between quality and cost following gastrointestinal surgical procedure is complex. Data from the current study should serve to highlight the various means available to improve the value proposition related to surgery, as well as encourage surgeons to become more engaged in the national conversation around the Triple Aim of better health care quality, lower costs, and improved health care outcomes.

Influence of hospital teaching status on the chance to achieve a textbook outcome after hepatopancreatic surgery for cancer among Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Assessing composite measures of quality such as textbook outcome may be superior to focusing on individual parameters when evaluating hospital performance. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact of teaching hospital status on the occurrence of a textbook outcome after hepatopancreatic surgery.

METHODS

The Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were used to identify patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery from 2013 to 2015 for a malignant indication. Stratified and multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between teaching hospital status, hospital surgical volume and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Among 8,035 Medicare patients (hepatectomy; 41.8%, pancreatectomy; 58.2%), 6,196 (77.1%) patients underwent surgery at a major teaching hospital, whereas 1,839 (22.9%) patients underwent surgery at a minor teaching hospital. Patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer at a major teaching hospital had a greater likelihood of achieving a textbook outcome compared with patients treated at a minor teaching hospital (minor teaching hospital: 456, 40% versus major teaching hospital: 1,606, 45.4%; P = .002). The likelihood of textbook outcome was also greater among patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at high-volume centers (pancreas, low volume: 875, 40.5% versus high volume: 1,187, 47.1% P < .001; liver, low volume: 608, 41.8% versus high volume: 886, 46.6%; P = .005). When examining only major teaching hospitals, patients undergoing a pancreatectomy at a high-volume center had 29% greater odds of achieving a textbook outcome (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.49). In contrast, among patients undergoing pancreatic resection at high-volume centers, the odds of achieving a textbook outcome was comparable among major versus minor teaching hospital (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.53).

CONCLUSION

The odds of achieving a textbook outcome after pancreatic and hepatic surgery was greater at major versus minor teaching hospitals; however, this effect was largely mediated by hepatopancreatic procedural volume. Patients and payers should focus on regionalization of pancreatic and liver resection to high-volume centers in an effort to optimize the chances of achieving a textbook outcome.

Centralisation of oesophagectomy in Australia: is only caseload critical?

Objective High caseload is considered one of the most important factors for good outcomes after high-risk surgeries such as oesophagectomy. However, many Australian centres perform low volumes of oesophagectomies due to demographics. The aim of the present study was to audit outcome after oesophagectomy in an Australian low-volume centre over a period of 13 years and to discuss potential contributors to outcome other than just case volume. Methods Perioperative and long-term outcomes of all oesophagectomies over a 13-year period in a low-volume Australian tertiary care centre were analysed retrospectively. Data were compared in subgroups of patients in two separate time periods: 2000-05 (n=23) and 2006-12 (n=24). Results There were two perioperative deaths over the entire 13-year period with no postoperative mortality in the last decade. The complication and long-term survival rates for each of the two separate time periods were similar to those from high-volume centres, more so in the second half of the study period. Conclusions The data suggest that under specific conditions, oesophagectomies can be safely performed even in smaller- or low-volume centres in Australia. The policy of centralisation for these procedures in Australia needs to be carefully tailored to the needs of the population, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and optimal utilisation of existing facilities rather than on caseload alone. What is known about the topic? High caseload is considered one of the most important factors for good outcomes after oesophagectomy and a driving force behind centralisation of this procedure. However, other factors may also affect outcome - such as availability of experienced surgeons, specialist nurses, interventional radiology, gastroenterology, etc. What does this paper add? With the availability of appropriate levels of expertise, infrastructure and specialist nursing staff as is the case in most Australian tertiary centres, good perioperative outcomes can be obtained despite low volumes. Case load only should not be used as a surrogate marker of quality. What are the implications for practitioners? The policy of centralisation for oesophagectomy in Australia needs to be carefully thought out on the basis of population demographics, outcomes and cost-effectiveness, with the appropriate use of existing facilities, rather than on a caseload basis alone.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A North American Perspective

BACKGROUND

Data are limited regarding the application of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Western countries or for esophageal adenocarcinoma in any part of the world. We sought to review our experience employing ESD in patients with early esophageal cancer at a high volume North American esophageal cancer treatment center.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all patients with esophageal cancer treated at the McGill University Health Center was used to identify ESDs performed for adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2016. Patient demographics, pre-resection tumor characteristics, endoscopic resection technical variables, pathologic results, and short- and long-term outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 650 patients in the database, 26 underwent 27 procedures. The majority (67%) had pre-treatment EUS. There were no post-ESD bleeding events requiring re-intervention. Perforation occurred in 2/27 (7%), one of which required operative repair. Complete RO resection was achieved in 18/27(67%). Salvage laparoscopic esophagectomy was performed in six patients. At a median follow-up of 18.5 (7-35) months, cancer recurrence occurred in only one patient who subsequently underwent successful repeat ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technically challenging, ESD represents a safe and effective treatment of early esophageal adenocarcinoma and has the potential to become a more important tool in management of these early lesions in Western countries.

Predictors of Failure to Rescue After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Failure to rescue (FTR), defined as death after a major complication, is a metric increasingly being used to assess quality of care. Risk factors associated with FTR after esophagectomy have not been previously studied.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit between 2010 and 2014. Patients with at least one major postoperative complication were grouped according to inhospital mortality (FTR group) and survival to discharge (SUR group). A stepwise logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of FTR.

RESULTS

A total of 1,730 patients comprised the study group, with 102 (5.9%) in the FTR group and 1,628 (94.1%) in the SUR group. The FTR patients were older (69.0 versus 64.0 years, p < 0.0001) compared with the SUR patients. There were no differences in sex, body mass index, preoperative weight loss, smoking status, operation type, or surgeon specialty between the two groups. Age greater than 75 years (adjusted odds ratio 2.68, p < 0.0001), black race (adjusted odds ratio 2.75, p = 0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 or 5 (adjusted odds ratio 1.82, p = 0.02), and the occurrence of pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute renal failure, sepsis, or acute myocardial infarction were predictive of FTR based on multivariable logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 6% of patients who have a major complication after esophagectomy do not survive to discharge. Age greater than 75 years, black race, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 or 5, and complications related to major infection or organ failure predict FTR. Further research is necessary to investigate how these factors affect survival after complications in order to improve rescue efforts.

Impact of Surgeon Specialty on Perioperative Outcomes of Surgery for Benign Esophageal Diseases: A NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery for benign esophageal disease is mostly performed either by general surgeons (GS) or cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS) in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of surgeon specialty on perioperative outcomes of surgery for benign esophageal diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have conducted a retrospective analysis using the ACS-NSQIP during the period of 2006-2013. Patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair, gastric fundoplication, or Heller esophagomyotomy were divided into two groups according to the specialty of the surgeon (GS or CTS). Outcomes compared between the two groups using multivariable logistic regression included 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, discharge destination, hospital length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Most of the surgeries were performed by general surgeons (PEH: 97.1%; fundoplication: 97.6%; Heller: 91.6%). Patients had lower comorbidities, better physical condition, and underwent a laparoscopic approach more frequently in the GS group. Regression analysis showed that GS group had a lower mortality rate (operating room, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.86; P = .017), shorter LOS, and more home discharge for patients undergoing PEH repair. Mortality, morbidity, readmission, LOS, and home discharge were comparable between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy.

CONCLUSION

GS perform most of esophageal surgeries for benign diseases. GS group has better outcomes in PEH repair compared with CTS, whereas there is no difference in the overall outcomes between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy. These results show that specialization is not always the answer to better outcomes. Difference in outcomes, however, might be related to disease severity, approach needed, or case volume.

Failure-to-Rescue in Thoracic Surgery

Variability in outcomes not attributable to case mix or chance is an indicator of low-quality care. Failure-to-rescue is an outcome measure defined as death during a hospitalization among patients who experience a complication. Researchers have used this measure to better understand the determinants of an untimely death-preventing complications, rescue, or both. Studies repeatedly find that complication rates vary little, if at all, across hospitals ranked by risk-adjusted mortality rates, suggesting that hospitals are equally capable (or incapable) of preventing complications. In contrast, variation in failure-to-rescue rates seems to explain much of the variation in risk-adjusted hospital-level mortality rates. These findings suggest that system-level interventions that allow for the early detection and treatment of complications (ie, rescue) may reduce variability in hospital-level outcomes and improve the quality of thoracic surgical care.

A Defined Esophagectomy Perioperative Clinical Care Process Can Improve Outcomes and Costs

Esophagectomy (EG) is a high-risk therapy for esophageal cancer and end-stage benign disease. This study compares the results of EG before and after implementation of a perioperative clinical care process including a health provider education program (EP) and institutional uncomplicated postoperative clinical pathway (POP) for purpose quality improvement. This is a single institution retrospective cohort study. The EP was provided to critical care and telemetry unit nurses and the POP was imbedded in the electronic health record. Patients undergoing elective EG with reconstruction with the stomach for benign disease or cancer were included from 2005 to 2011. Cohorts were pre- and postimplementation (PreI and PostI) of an EP and 8-day POP (August 2008). Patient, tumor and peri/postoperative-specific variables were compared between cohorts, as well as resource utilization and hospital costs. We identified 33 PreI and 41 PostI patients. Both cohorts had similar patient demographics, preoperative comorbidities, majority cancer diagnosis, and for cancer patients, majority adenocarcinoma and IIB/III pathologic stage. Both groups had one death and similar rate of discharge to home. The PostI cohort demonstrated reduced 30-day readmission rate (2.4% vs 24.2%); P < 0.05. In regard to clinical outcomes, the PostI group exhibited reduced deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary emboli (2.4% vs 18.2%); P < 0.05. The PostI group demonstrated significantly reduced radiographic test utilization and costs, as well as total overall 30-day readmission costs. A defined perioperative clinical process involving educating the patient care team and implementing a widely disseminated POP can reduce complications, 30-day readmission rates, and hospital costs after EG.

Influence of Specialty Training and Trainee Involvement on Perioperative Outcomes of Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Hospitals' and surgeons' volume-outcome relationship have been reported in several esophagectomy studies with an inverse association of mortality and volume. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the outcomes of esophagectomy in the United States relative to the surgeon's specialty.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2006 to 2013). All patients (18 years of age and older) who underwent esophagectomy were divided into 2 groups according to whether the operation was performed by a general surgeon (GS) or a cardiothoracic surgeon (CTS). A comparison of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between the groups was conducted. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included overall and serious morbidity, discharge destination, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of the 5,142 esophagectomies identified, 70.3% were performed by GS and 29.7% by CTS. Overall, CTS patients had significantly higher comorbidities and cancer rates (61% versus 53%). Both specialties preferred the transthoracic approach (59.41% for CTS versus 44.90% for GS). Trainee involvement was higher for CTS. There was no significant difference in mortality or overall morbidity. Patients operated on by GS had higher rates of wound infection, sepsis, shock, prolonged or unplanned intubation, and a longer hospital stay, whereas patients operated on by CTS had higher chance for bleeding and return to the operating room. Trainees' involvement in esophagectomy was not associated with worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that a large number of esophagectomies in the United States are performed by GS, with the transthoracic approach being the most popular among both specialties. Trainees' involvement in esophagectomy did not significantly affect patients' outcomes. However CTS specialty was associated with lower incidence of infection and a shorter hospital stay.

Esophageal surgery in minimally invasive era

The widespread popularity of new surgical technologies such as laparoscopy, thoracoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat esophageal diseases with these methods. The expected benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) mainly include reductions of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and pain and better cosmetic results. All of these benefits could potentially be of great interest when dealing with the esophagus due to the potentially severe complications that can occur after conventional surgery. Moreover, robotic platforms are expected to reduce many of the difficulties encountered during advanced laparoscopic and thoracoscopic procedures such as anastomotic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomies, and vascular sutures. Almost all esophageal diseases are approachable in a minimally invasive way, including diverticula, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, achalasia, perforations and cancer. Nevertheless, while the limits of MIS for benign esophageal diseases are mainly technical issues and costs, oncologic outcomes remain the cornerstone of any procedure to cure malignancies, for which the long-term results are critical. Furthermore, many of the minimally invasive esophageal operations should be compared to pharmacologic interventions and advanced pure endoscopic procedures; such a comparison requires a difficult literature analysis and leads to some confounding results of clinical trials. This review aims to examine the evidence for the use of MIS in both malignancies and more common benign disease of the esophagus, with a particular emphasis on future developments and ongoing areas of research.

Trends and variations in the rates of hospital complications, failure-to-rescue and 30-day mortality in surgical patients in New South Wales, Australia, 2002-2009

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased acceptance of failure-to-rescue (FTR) as an important patient safety indicator (defined as the percentage of deaths among surgical patients with treatable complications), there has not been any large epidemiological study reporting FTR in an Australian setting nor any evaluation on its suitability as a performance indicator.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based study on elective surgical patients from 82 public acute hospitals in New South Wales, Australia between 2002 and 2009, exploring the trends and variations in rates of hospital complications, FTR and 30-day mortality. We used Poisson regression models to derive relative risk ratios (RRs) after adjusting for a range of patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

The average rates of complications, FTR and 30-day mortality were 13.8 per 1000 admissions, 14.1% and 6.1 per 1000 admission, respectively. The rates of complications and 30-day mortality were stable throughout the study period however there was a significant decrease in FTR rate after 2006, coinciding with the establishment of national and state-level peak patient safety agencies. There were marked variations in the three rates within the top 20% of hospitals (best) and bottom 20% of hospitals (worst) for each of the four peer-hospital groups. The group comprising the largest volume hospitals (principal referral/teaching hospitals) had a significantly higher rate of FTR in comparison to the other three groups of smaller-sized peer hospital groups (RR = 0.78, 0.57, and 0.61, respectively). Adjusted rates of complications, FTR and 30-day mortality varied widely for individual surgical procedures between the best and worst quintile hospitals within the principal referral hospital group.

CONCLUSIONS

The decrease in FTR rate over the study period appears to be associated with a wide range of patient safety programs. The marked variations in the three rates between- and within- peer hospital groups highlight the potential for further quality improvement intervention opportunities.

Outcomes of esophagectomy for esophageal achalasia in the United States

BACKGROUND

While the outcomes after Heller myotomy have been extensively reported, little is known about patients with esophageal achalasia who are treated with esophagectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample over an 11-year period (2000-2010). Patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of achalasia who underwent esophagectomy (group 1) were compared to patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy (group 2) during the same time period. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, postoperative complications, and total hospital charges. A propensity-matched analysis was conducted comparing the same outcomes between group 1 and well-matched controls in group 2.

RESULTS

Nine hundred sixty-three patients with achalasia and 18,003 patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy. The propensity matched analysis showed a trend toward a higher mortality in group 2 (7.8 vs. 2.9 %, p = 0.08). Postoperative length of stay and complications were similar in both groups. Total hospital charges were higher for the achalasia group ($115,087 vs. $99, 654.2, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study to date examining outcomes after esophagectomy in patients with achalasia. Based on our findings, esophagectomy can be considered a safe option, and surgeons should not be hindered by a perceived notion of prohibitive operative risk in this patient population.

Impact of hospital teaching status on length of stay and mortality among patients undergoing complex hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery in the USA

OBJECTIVE

To define the impact of hospital teaching status on length of stay and mortality for patients undergoing complex hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery in the USA.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified 285,442 patient records that involved a liver resection, pancreatoduodenectomy, other pancreatic resection, or hepaticojejunostomy between years 2000 and 2010. Year-wise distribution of procedures at teaching and non-teaching hospitals was described. The impact of teaching status on in-hospital mortality for operations performed at hospitals in the top tertile of procedure volume was determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A majority of patients were under 65 years of age (59.6 %), white (74.0 %), admitted on an elective basis (77.3 %), and had a low comorbidity burden (70.5 %). Ninety percent were operated upon at hospitals in the top tertile of yearly procedure volume. Among patients undergoing an operation at a hospital in the top tertile of procedure volume (>25/year), non-teaching status was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death (OR 1.47 [1.3, 1.7]). Other factors associated with increased risk of mortality were older patient age (OR 2.52 [2.3, 2.8]), male gender (OR 1.73 [1.6, 1.9]), higher comorbidity burden (OR 1.49 [1.3, 1.7]), non-elective admission (OR 3.32 [2.9, 4.0]), and having a complication during in-hospital stay (OR 2.53 [2.2, 3.0]), while individuals with private insurance had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.45 [0.4, 0.5]). After controlling for other covariates, undergoing complex HPB surgery at a non-teaching hospital remained independently associated with 32 % increased odds of death as (OR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11-1.58; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Even among high-volume hospitals, patients undergoing complex HPB have better outcomes at teaching vs. non-teaching hospitals. While procedural volume is an established factor associated with surgical outcomes among patients undergoing complex HPB procedures, other hospital-level factors such as teaching status have an important impact on peri-operative outcomes.

Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is an important cause of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy. Few studies have targeted risk factors for the development of leak after esophagectomy. The purpose of this study is to use The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database to identify variables associated with leak after esophagectomy.

METHODS

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database was queried for patients treated with esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 2001 and 2011. Univariate and multivariate analysis of variables associated with an increased risk anastomotic leak was performed.

RESULTS

There were 7,595 esophagectomies, with 804 (10.6%) leaks. Thirty-day mortality and length of stay were higher for patients with anastomotic leak. Mortality in patients requiring surgical management was 11.6% (38 of 327) compared with 4.4% (20 of 458) in medically managed leaks (p < 0.001). The leak rate was higher in patients with cervical anastomosis compared with those with intrathoracic anastomoses, 12.3% versus 9.3%, respectively (p = 0.006). There was no difference in leak-associated mortality between the two approaches. Factors associated with leak on univariate analysis include obesity, heart failure, coronary disease, vascular disease, hypertension, steroids, diabetes, renal insufficiency, tobacco use, procedure duration greater than 5 hours, and type of procedure (p < 0.05). Multivariable regression analysis associated heart failure, hypertension, renal insufficiency, and type of procedure as risk factors for the development of leak (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomotic leak after esophagectomy is an important cause of postoperative mortality and increased length of stay. We have identified important risk factors for the development of esophageal anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. Further studies aimed at risk reduction are warranted.