The 2018 ISDE achalasia guidelines

Achalasia is a relatively rare primary motor esophageal disorder, characterized by absence of relaxations of the lower esophageal sphincter and of peristalsis along the esophageal body. As a result, patients typically present with dysphagia, regurgitation and occasionally chest pain, pulmonary complication and malnutrition. New diagnostic methodologies and therapeutic techniques have been recently added to the armamentarium for treating achalasia. With the aim to offer clinicians and patients an up-to-date framework for making informed decisions on the management of this disease, the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus Guidelines proposed and endorsed the Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines (I-GOAL). The guidelines were prepared according the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-REX) tool, accredited for guideline production by NICE UK. A systematic literature search was performed and the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations were graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Given the relative rarity of this disease and the paucity of high-level evidence in the literature, this process was integrated with a three-step process of anonymous voting on each statement (DELPHI). Only statements with an approval rate >80% were accepted in the guidelines. Fifty-one experts from 11 countries and 3 representatives from patient support associations participated to the preparations of the guidelines. These guidelines deal specifically with the following achalasia issues: Diagnostic workup, Definition of the disease, Severity of presentation, Medical treatment, Botulinum Toxin injection, Pneumatic dilatation, POEM, Other endoscopic treatments, Laparoscopic myotomy, Definition of recurrence, Follow up and risk of cancer, Management of end stage achalasia, Treatment options for failure, Achalasia in children, Achalasia secondary to Chagas' disease

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 < 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<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<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