Relative Incremental Cost of Postoperative Complications of Esophagectomy

Efficacy of preoperative single-dose dexamethasone in preventing postoperative pulmonary complications following minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

The study was performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of preoperative dexamethasone (DXM) in preventing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

Patients who underwent total MIE with two-field lymph node dissection from February 2018 to February 2023 were included in this study. Patients who were given either 5 mg or 10 mg DXM as preoperative prophylactic medication before induction of general anesthesia were assigned to the DXM group, while patients who did not receive DXM were assigned to the control group. Preoperative evaluations, intraoperative data, and occurrence of postoperative complications were analyzed. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs occurring by day 7 after surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 659 patients were included in the study; 453 patients received preoperative DXM, while 206 patients did not. Propensity score-matched analysis created a matched cohort of 366 patients, with 183 patients each in the DXM and control groups. A total of 24.6% of patients in the DXM group and 30.6% of patients in the control group had PPCs (P = 0.198). The incidence of respiratory failure was significantly lower in the DXM group than in the control group (1.1% vs 5.5%, P = 0.019). Fewer patients were re-intubated during their hospital stay in the DXM group than in the control group (1.1% vs 5.5%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative DXM before induction of anesthesia did not reduce overall PPC development after MIE. Nevertheless, the occurrence of early respiratory failure and the incidence of re-intubation during hospitalization were decreased.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2300071674; Date of registration, 22/05/2023).

Long-Term Impact of Severe Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe postoperative complications (SPCs) may occur after curative esophagectomy for cancer and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, augmented costs, and increased in-hospital mortality. However, the effect of SPCs on survival after esophagectomy is uncertain.

AIM

To assess the impact of severe postoperative complications (SPCs) on long-term survival following curative esophagectomy for cancer, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to December 2023. The included studies examined the relationship between SPCs and survival outcomes, defining SPCs as Clavien-Dindo grade > 3. The primary outcome measure was long-term overall survival (OS). We used restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate pooled effect sizes. Additionally, we applied the GRADE methodology to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Ten studies (2181 patients) were included. SPCs were reported in 651 (29.8%) patients. The RMSTD overall survival analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, patients experiencing SPCs lived for 8.6 months (95% Cis -12.5, -4.7; p < 0.001) less, on average, compared with no-SPC patients. No differences were found for 60-month follow-up disease-free survival (-4.6 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.9; p = 0.17) and cancer-specific survival (-6.8 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.7; p = 0.21). The GRADE certainty of this evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a statistically significant detrimental effect of SPCs on OS in patients undergoing curative esophagectomy for cancer. Also, a clinical trend toward reduced CSS and DFS was perceived.

The Role of Prehabilitation in Modern Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: A Comprehensive Review

Simple Summary

Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment option for esophagogastric cancer. Although esophagectomy/gastrectomy remains associated with major surgical trauma and significant morbidity. Prehabilitation has emerged as a novel strategy to improve postoperative outcomes by preparing patients for a surgery-associated physiological challenge. We discuss current knowledge and the results of studies on the role of prehabilitation in esophagogastric cancer surgery.

Abstract

Esophagogastric cancer is among the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy is the only potentially curative treatment option. Although esophagogastric resections remain associated with major surgical trauma and significant postoperative morbidity. Prehabilitation has emerged as a novel strategy to improve clinical outcomes by optimizing physical and psychological status before major surgery through exercise and nutritional and psychological interventions. Current prehabilitation programs may be unimodal, including only one intervention, or multimodal, combining the benefits of different types of interventions. However, it still is an investigational treatment option mostly limited to clinical trials. In this comprehensive review, we summarize the current evidence for the role of prehabilitation in modern esophagogastric cancer surgery. The available studies are very heterogeneous in design, type of interventions, and measured outcomes. Yet, all of them confirm at least some positive effects of prehabilitation in terms of improved physical performance, nutritional status, quality of life, or even reduced postoperative morbidity. However, the optimal interventions for prehabilitation remain unclear; thus, they cannot be standardized and widely adopted. Future studies on multimodal prehabilitation are necessary to develop optimal programs for patients with esophagogastric cancer.

[Minimum volume requirements-perspective of a tertiary care hospital]

BACKGROUND

The increase of minimum volumes for complex esophageal resections decided by the Federal Joint Committee (GBA) in Germany is currently the subject of intensive discussions.

OBJECTIVE

To shed light on the effects of minimum volume requirements from the perspective of a tertiary care hospital.

RESULTS

Strict adherence to the valid minimum volume requirements for esophageal surgery would significantly reduce the number of hospitals offering these procedures in Germany. The associated loss of revenue should not have any relevant negative economic consequences for most hospitals; however, the loss of complex esophageal surgery may result in a competitive disadvantage for these hospitals in times of shortage of qualified medical personnel. Another point of criticism is the assumption that the treatment quality can be recognized based solely on the numbers of patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite the well-known volume-outcome relationship, minimum volume requirements do not define the lower limit of quality of surgical treatment. Therefore, additional evidence of treatment quality, such as structural or process quality as well as outcome parameters should be required, e.g. through certification. An obligatory synchronous certification could contribute to increasing the acceptance of minimum volume requirements in Germany.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic).

METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Improved Quality of Care and Efficiency Do Not Always Mean Cost Recovery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to determine the financial impact of clinical complications and outcomes after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) at a safety-net hospital.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing MILE from 2013 to 2018. Postoperative complications were classified by Clavien-Dindo grade and associated total and direct recovered costs were assessed. Direct cost and LOS index were defined as the ratio of observed to expected values (>1 denotes above nationwide expectations). Annual outcomes were based on Medicare fiscal years.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-four patients (99 males, mean age 65.7 ± 9.3) were surgically treated for esophageal malignancy (n = 118) and benign disease (n = 6) by MILE between 2014 and 2018. Mean ICU LOS (5.8 ± 6.6 versus 4.3 ± 6.3 days) and LOS index (1.16 versus 0.76) improved from 2014 to 2018. Both direct cost index (1.03 versus 0.99) and indirect costs (43.4% versus 41.4%) decreased over time. However, direct costs recovered (213.6 to 159.0%) and total costs recovered (119.1 to 92.5%) declined during this period. Clinical complications grade was not associated with total costs recovered (p = 0.69). Extent of recovered expenditure was significantly higher from commercial/private payers as compared to government-sponsored payers (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Improvement in clinical outcomes and efficiency of care are not reflected by annual recovered expenditure. Furthermore, clinical complications do not correlate with the ability to recover hospital spending. Financial recovery was primary payer dependent. Enhanced collaboration with hospital administration may be needed in an effort to maximize financial fidelity in the presence of good quality of care after highly complex procedures.

Reoperative Surgery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to identify factors influencing reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and associated mortality and hospital costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2018, 125 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included reoperations, mortality, and hospital costs. Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined factors associated with reoperations.

RESULTS

In-hospital reoperations (n=10) were associated with in-hospital mortality (n=3, P<0.01), higher hospital costs (P<0.01), and longer hospital stay (P<0.01). Conversely, reoperations after discharge were not associated with mortality. By multivariable analysis, baseline cardiovascular (P=0.02) and chronic kidney disease (P=0.01) were associated with reoperations. However, anastomotic leaks were not associated with reoperations nor mortality.

CONCLUSION

The majority of reoperations occur within 30 days often during index hospitalization. Reoperations were associated with increased in-hospital mortality and hospital costs. Notably, anastomotic leaks did not influence reoperations nor mortality. Efforts to optimize patient baseline comorbidities should be emphasized to minimize reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Risk Prediction Model of 90-Day Mortality After Esophagectomy for Cancer

Importance

Ninety-day mortality rates after esophagectomy are an indicator of the quality of surgical oncologic management. Accurate risk prediction based on large data sets may aid patients and surgeons in making informed decisions.

Objective

To develop and validate a risk prediction model of death within 90 days after esophagectomy for cancer using the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) database, the largest existing prospective, multicenter cohort reporting standardized postoperative outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this diagnostic/prognostic study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients from 39 institutions in 19 countries between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Patients with esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to development and validation cohorts. A scoring system that predicted death within 90 days based on logistic regression β coefficients was conducted. A final prognostic score was determined and categorized into homogeneous risk groups that predicted death within 90 days. Calibration and discrimination tests were assessed between cohorts.

Exposures

Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All-cause postoperative 90-day mortality.

Results

A total of 8403 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.0] years; 6641 [79.0%] male) were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 164), and the 90-day mortality rate was 4.2% (n = 353). Development (n = 4172) and validation (n = 4231) cohorts were randomly assigned. The multiple logistic regression model identified 10 weighted point variables factored into the prognostic score: age, sex, body mass index, performance status, myocardial infarction, connective tissue disease, peripheral vascular disease, liver disease, neoadjuvant treatment, and hospital volume. The prognostic scores were categorized into 5 risk groups: very low risk (score, ≥1; 90-day mortality, 1.8%), low risk (score, 0; 90-day mortality, 3.0%), medium risk (score, -1 to -2; 90-day mortality, 5.8%), high risk (score, -3 to -4: 90-day mortality, 8.9%), and very high risk (score, ≤-5; 90-day mortality, 18.2%). The model was supported by nonsignificance in the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the development cohort and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69) in the validation cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, on the basis of preoperative variables, the IESG risk prediction model allowed stratification of an individual patient's risk of death within 90 days after esophagectomy. These data suggest that this model can help in the decision-making process when esophageal cancer surgery is being considered and in informed consent.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the prevention and management of tracheal and oesophageal anastomotic complications

OBJECTIVES

Failure of anastomotic healing is a morbid complication after airway or oesophageal surgery. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been used extensively in the management of complex wound-healing problems. We demonstrate the use of HBOT to rescue at-risk anastomoses or manage anastomotic failures in thoracic surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 25 patients who received HBOT as part of the management of tracheal or oesophageal anastomotic problems during 2007-2018. HBOT was delivered at 2 atm with 100% oxygen in 90-min sessions.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients underwent airway resection and reconstruction while 2 patients underwent oesophagectomy. There were 16 (70%) laryngotracheal and 7 (30%) tracheal resections. Necrosis at the airway anastomosis was found in 13 (57%) patients, partial dehiscence in 2 (9%) patients and both in 6 (26%) patients. HBOT was prophylactic in 2 (9%) patients. Patients received a median of 9.5 HBOT sessions (interquartile range 5-19 sessions) over a median course of 8 days. The airway anastomosis healed in 20 of 23 (87%) patients. Overall, a satisfactory long-term airway outcome was achieved in 19 (83%) patients; 4 patients failed and required reoperation (2 tracheostomies and 1 T-tube). HBOT was used in 2 patients after oesophagectomy to manage focal necrosis or ischaemia at the anastomosis, with success in 1 patient. Complications from HBOT were infrequent and mild (e.g. ear discomfort).

CONCLUSIONS

HBOT should be considered as an adjunct in the management of anastomotic problems after airway surgery. It may also play a role after oesophagectomy. Possible mechanisms of action are rapid granulation, early re-epithelialization and angiogenesis.

Drivers of Cost Associated With Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

In this era of value-based healthcare, costs must be measured alongside patient outcomes to prioritize quality improvement and inform performance-based reimbursement strategies. We sought to identify drivers of costs for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from December 2008 to March 2020 were included. Our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database was merged with financial data to determine inpatient direct accounting costs in 2020 US dollars for total, operative (surgery and anesthesia), and postoperative (intensive care, floor, radiology, laboratory, etc) services. A supervised machine learning quantitative method, the lasso estimator with 10-fold cross-validation, was applied to identify predictors of costs.

RESULTS

In the study cohort (n = 240) most had ≥cT2 pathology (82%), adenocarcinoma histology (90%), and received neoadjuvant therapy (78%). Mean length of stay was 8.00 days (SD, 4.13) with 45% inpatient morbidity rate and no deaths. The largest proportions of cost were from the operating room (30%), inpatient floor (30%), and postanesthesia care/intensive care units (20%). Preoperative predictors of operative costs were age (-5.18% per decade [95% confidence interval {CI}, -9.95 to -0.27], P = .039), body mass index ≥ 30 (+12.9% [95% CI, 0.00-27.5], P = .050), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (-3.24% per 10% forced expiratory volume in 1 second [95% CI, -5.80 to -0.61], P = .017), and year of surgery (+2.55% [95% CI, 0.97-4.15], P = .002). Predictors of postoperative costs were postoperative renal failure (+91.6% [95% CI, 9.93-233.8], P = .022), respiratory failure (+414.6% [95% CI, 158.7-923.6], P < .001), pneumonia (+136.1% [95% CI, 71.1-225.8], P < .001), and reoperation (+60.5% [95% CI, 21.5-111.9], P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Costs associated with minimally invasive esophagectomy are driven by preoperative risk factors and postoperative outcomes. These data enable surgeons and policymakers to reduce cost variation, improve quality through standardization, and ultimately provide greater value to patients.