Nationwide Association of Surgical Performance of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy With Patient Outcomes

IMPORTANCE: Suboptimal surgical performance is hypothesized to be associated with less favorable patient outcomes in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Establishing this association may lead to programs that promote better surgical performance of MIE and improve patient outcomes.OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between surgical performance and postoperative outcomes after MIE.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this nationwide cohort study of 15 Dutch hospitals that perform more than 20 MIEs per year, 7 masked expert MIE surgeons assessed surgical performance using videos and a previously developed and validated competency assessment tool (CAT). Each hospital submitted 2 representative videos of MIEs performed between November 4, 2021, and September 13, 2022. Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were included to examine patient outcomes.EXPOSURE: Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on their MIE-CAT performance score. Outcomes were compared between highest (top 25%) and lowest (bottom 25%) performing quartiles. Transthoracic MIE with gastric tube reconstruction.MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) within 30 days after surgery. Multilevel logistic regression, with clustering of patients within hospitals, was used to analyze associations between performance and outcomes.RESULTS:In total, 30 videos and 970 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.6 [9.1] years; 719 men [74.1%]) were included. The mean (SD) MIE-CAT score was 113.6 (5.5) in the highest performance quartile vs 94.1 (5.9) in the lowest. Severe postoperative complications occurred in 18.7% (41 of 219) of patients in the highest performance quartile vs 39.2% (40 of 102) in the lowest (risk ratio [RR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99). The highest vs the lowest performance quartile showed lower rates of conversions (1.8% vs 8.9%; RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21), intraoperative complications (2.7% vs 7.8%; RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-0.94), and overall postoperative complications (46.1% vs 65.7%; RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.24-0.96). The R0 resection rate (96.8% vs 94.2%; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05) and lymph node yield (mean [SD], 38.9 [14.7] vs 26.2 [9.0]; RR, 3.20; 95% CI, 0.27-3.21) increased with oncologic-specific performance (eg, hiatus dissection, lymph node dissection). In addition, a high anastomotic phase score was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate (4.6% vs 17.7%; RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.31).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that better surgical performance is associated with fewer perioperative complications for patients with esophageal cancer on a national level. If surgical performance of MIE can be improved with MIE-CAT implementation, substantially better patient outcomes may be achievable.</p

Intrathoracic vs Cervical Anastomosis After Totally or Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE. Objective: To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life. Results: Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Trial Registration: Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333)

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions

Postponed or immediate drainage of infected necrotizing pancreatitis (POINTER trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Infected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15–20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention. Methods POINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization. Discussion The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis

Effectiveness of treatment for octogenarians with acute abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objective:To investigate whether advanced age may be a reason to refrain from treatment in patients with an acute abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAAA).Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study that took place in a tertiary care university hospital with a 45-bed intensive care unit. Two hundred seventy-one patients with manifest AAAA, admitted and treated between January 2000 and February 2008, were included. Six patients died during operation and were included in the final analysis to ensure an intention-to-treat protocol, resulting in 234 men and 37 women with a mean age of 72 ± 7.8 years (range, 54-88 years). Forty-six patients (17%) were 80 years or older. Interventions involved open or endovascular AAAA repair.Results:Mean follow-up was 33 ± 30.4 months (including early deaths). Mean hospital length of stay was 16.9 ± 20 days for patients younger than 80 and 13 ± 16.7 days for patients older than 80 years of age. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a significantly better survival for the younger patients (P < .05). Stratification based on urgency or type of treatment did not change the difference. Two-year actuarial survival was 70% for patients younger than 80 and 52% for those older than 80. At 5-year follow-up, these figures were 62% and 29%, respectively. Mean survival in patients older than 80 was 39.8 ± 6.8 months versus 64.5 ± 3.0 months in those younger than 80.Conclusions:For octogenarians, our liberal strategy of treating patients with AAAA was associated with satisfactory short- and long-term outcome, with no difference with regard to disease- or procedure-related morbidity between the younger and older group. Assuming an integrated system for managing AAAA is in place, advanced age is not a reason to deny patients surgery

Prognostic value of Mandard score and nodal status for recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association of pathological tumour response (tumour regression grade, TRG) and a novel scoring system, combining both TRG and nodal status (TRG-ypN score; TRG1-ypN0, TRG&gt;1-ypN0, TRG1-ypN+ and TRG&gt;1-ypN+), with recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This Dutch nationwide cohort study included patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy for distal oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2016. The primary endpoint was the association of Mandard score and TRG-ypN score with recurrence patterns (rate, location, and time to recurrence). The secondary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: Among 2746 inclusions, recurrence rates increased with higher Mandard scores (TRG1 30.6%, TRG2 44.9%, TRG3 52.9%, TRG4 61.4%, TRG5 58.2%; P &lt; 0.001). Among patients with recurrent disease, the distribution (locoregional versus distant) was the same for the different TRG groups. Patients with TRG1 developed more brain recurrences (17.7 versus 9.8%; P = 0.001) and had a longer mean overall survival (44 versus 35 months; P &lt; 0.001) than those with TRG&gt;1. The TRG&gt;1-ypN+ group had the highest recurrence rate (64.9%) and worst overall survival (mean 27 months). Compared with the TRG&gt;1-ypN0 group, patients with TRG1-ypN+ had a higher risk of recurrence (51.9 versus 39.6%; P &lt; 0.001) and worse mean overall survival (33 versus 41 months; P &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSION: Improved tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy was associated with lower recurrence rates and higher overall survival rates. Among patients with recurrent disease, TRG1 was associated with a higher incidence of brain recurrence than TRG&gt;1. Residual nodal disease influenced prognosis more negatively than residual disease at the primary tumour site.</p

Endoscopic versus surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (ExTENSION): long-term follow-up of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the TENSION trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we re-evaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-months follow-up. The primary endpoint, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary endpoints included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, re-interventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 1.32, P=0.688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs. 34%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83). After the initial 6-months follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer re-interventions than the surgery group (7% vs. 24%; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer re-interventions after the initial 6-months follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Postponed or immediate drainage of infected necrotizing pancreatitis (POINTER trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Infected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15-20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention. Methods: POINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization. Discussion: The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis. Trial registration: ISRCTN, 33682933. Registered on 6 August 2015. Retrospectively registered