Contegra conduit for reconstruction of the right ventricular outflow tract: a review of published early and mid-time results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>The valved conduit Contegra (bovine jugular vein) has being implanted for more than 7 years in the right ventricular outflow tract and it is noted that the available reports have been mixed. The aim of this study is to review the reported evidence in the literature.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Search of the relevant literature for the primary endpoints of operative mortality and morbidity and secondary endpoints of follow-up haemodynamic performance including severe stenosis, regurgitation and need for reintervention are presented.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We selected and analysed 17 series including 767 patients. Commonest indication was Fallot's tetralogy. Operative mortality was 2.6%. Operative morbidity was 13.9%. In follow-up, the incidence of intraconduit stenosis was 10.9% (incidence of stenosis for the 12 millimetre conduit was 83.3% in one series) and that of at least moderate regurgitation was 6.3%.</p> <p>The aspirin users had a stenosis incidence of 10.5% compared to the non-users had a stenosis incidence of 9.6%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A dissent on the performance of the Contegra is discussed, while results are satisfactory in the majority of studies apart for the smallest conduits (12 and 14 millimetre), suggesting an association to compromised run-off. The role of aspirin as antithrombotic modulator remains controversial.</p

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND: The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. METHODS: Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery

Mortality from esophagectomy for esophageal cancer across low, middle, and high-income countries: An international cohort study

Background: No evidence currently exists characterising global outcomes following major cancer surgery, including esophageal cancer. Therefore, this study aimed to characterise impact of high income countries (HIC) versus low and middle income countries (LMIC) on the outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Method: This international multi-center prospective study across 137 hospitals in 41 countries included patients who underwent an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with 90-day follow-up. The main explanatory variable was country income, defined according to the World Bank Data classification. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality, and secondary outcomes were composite leaks (anastomotic leak or conduit necrosis) and major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III-V). Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to produce adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI95%).Results: Between April 2018 to December 2018, 2247 patients were included. Patients from HIC were more significantly older, with higher ASA grade, and more advanced tumors. Patients from LMIC had almost three-fold increase in 90-day mortality, compared to HIC (9.4% vs 3.7%, p &lt; 0.001). On adjusted analysis, LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day mortality (OR: 2.31, CI95%: 1.17-4.55, p = 0.015). However, LMIC were not independently associated with higher rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 1.06, CI95%: 0.57-1.99, p = 0.9) or major complications (OR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.54-1.32, p = 0.5), compared to HIC.Conclusion: Resections in LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day postoperative mortality, likely reflecting a failure to rescue of these patients following esophagectomy, despite similar composite anastomotic leaks and major complication rates to HIC. These findings warrant further research, to identify potential issues and solutions to improve global outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved

Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA)

Background: The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Methods: The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up. Results: The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P&lt;0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P&lt;0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P=0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P=0.013). Conclusion: Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts

Mortality from esophagectomy for esophageal cancer across low, middle, and high-income countries: An international cohort study.

BACKGROUND No evidence currently exists characterising global outcomes following major cancer surgery, including esophageal cancer. Therefore, this study aimed to characterise impact of high income countries (HIC) versus low and middle income countries (LMIC) on the outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. METHOD This international multi-center prospective study across 137 hospitals in 41 countries included patients who underwent an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with 90-day follow-up. The main explanatory variable was country income, defined according to the World Bank Data classification. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality, and secondary outcomes were composite leaks (anastomotic leak or conduit necrosis) and major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III - V). Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to produce adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS Between April 2018 to December 2018, 2247 patients were included. Patients from HIC were more significantly older, with higher ASA grade, and more advanced tumors. Patients from LMIC had almost three-fold increase in 90-day mortality, compared to HIC (9.4% vs 3.7%, p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day mortality (OR: 2.31, CI: 1.17-4.55, p = 0.015). However, LMIC were not independently associated with higher rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 1.06, CI: 0.57-1.99, p = 0.9) or major complications (OR: 0.85, CI: 0.54-1.32, p = 0.5), compared to HIC. CONCLUSION Resections in LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day postoperative mortality, likely reflecting a failure to rescue of these patients following esophagectomy, despite similar composite anastomotic leaks and major complication rates to HIC. These findings warrant further research, to identify potential issues and solutions to improve global outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer

The influence of anastomotic techniques on postoperative anastomotic complications: Results of the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit

Background: The optimal anastomotic techniques in esophagectomy to minimize rates of anastomotic leakage and conduit necrosis are not known. The aim of this study was to assess whether the anastomotic technique was associated with anastomotic failure after esophagectomy in the international Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit cohort. Methods: This prospective observational multicenter cohort study included patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer over 9 months during 2018. The primary exposure was the anastomotic technique, classified as handsewn, linear stapled, or circular stapled. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure, namely a composite of anastomotic leakage and conduit necrosis, as defined by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify the association between anastomotic techniques and anastomotic failure, after adjustment for confounders. Results: Of the 2238 esophagectomies, the anastomosis was handsewn in 27.1%, linear stapled in 21.0%, and circular stapled in 51.9%. Anastomotic techniques differed significantly by the anastomosis sites (P &lt;.001), with the majority of neck anastomoses being handsewn (69.9%), whereas most chest anastomoses were stapled (66.3% circular stapled and 19.3% linear stapled). Rates of anastomotic failure differed significantly among the anastomotic techniques (P &lt;.001), from 19.3% in handsewn anastomoses, to 14.0% in linear stapled anastomoses, and 12.1% in circular stapled anastomoses. This effect remained significant after adjustment for confounding factors on multivariable analysis, with an odds ratio of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.46-0.86; P =.004) for circular stapled versus handsewn anastomosis. However, subgroup analysis by anastomosis site suggested that this effect was predominantly present in neck anastomoses, with anastomotic failure rates of 23.2% versus 14.6% versus 5.9% for handsewn versus linear stapled anastomoses versus circular stapled neck anastomoses, compared with 13.7% versus 13.8% versus 12.2% for chest anastomoses. Conclusions: Handsewn anastomoses appear to be independently associated with higher rates of anastomotic failure compared with stapled anastomoses. However, this effect seems to be largely confined to neck anastomoses, with minimal differences between techniques observed for chest anastomoses. Further research into standardization of anastomotic approach and techniques may further improve outcomes

Postoperative and Pathological Outcomes of CROSS and FLOT as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal and Junctional Adenocarcinoma: An International Cohort Study From the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA)

Objective: This study aimed to compare the postoperative and pathological outcomes between carboplatin, paclitaxel, radiotherapy (CROSS) and 5-FU, leucovorine, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) patients from an international, multicenter cohort. Summary of Background Data: Ongoing debate exists around optimum approach to locally advanced EAC, with proponents for perioperative chemotherapy, such as FLOT, or multimodal therapy, in particular the CROSS regimen. Methods: Patients undergoing CROSS (n = 350) and FLOT (n = 368), followed by curative esophagectomy for EAC were identified from the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit. Results: The 90-day mortality was higher after CROSS than FLOT (5% vs 1%, P = 0.005), even on adjusted analyses [odds ratio (OR): 3.97, confidence interval (CI)95%: 1.34-13.67]. Postoperative mortality in CROSS were related to higher pulmonary (74% vs 60%) and cardiac complications (42% vs 20%) compared to FLOT. CROSS was associated with higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (18% vs 10%, P = 0.004) and margin-negative resections (93% vs 76%, P < 0.001) compared with FLOT. On adjusted analyses, CROSS was associated with higher pCR rates (OR: 2.05, CI95%: 1.26-3.34) and margin-negative resections (OR: 4.55, CI95%: 2.70-7.69) compared to FLOT. Conclusions: This study provides real-world data CROSS was associated with higher 90-day mortality than FLOT, related to cardio-pulmonary complications with CROSS. These warrant a further review into causes and mechanisms in selected patients, and at minimum suggest the need for strict radiation therapy quality assurance. Research into impact of higher pCR rates and R0 resections with CROSS compared to FLOT on long-term survival is needed