Postoperative intensive care unit stay after minimally invasive esophagectomy shows large hospital variation:Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

Item does not contain fulltextINTRODUCTION: The value of routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been questioned. This study aimed to investigate Dutch hospital variation regarding length of direct postoperative ICU stay, and the impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) undergoing curative MIE were included. Length of direct postoperative ICU stay was dichotomized around the national median into short ICU stay ( ≤ 1 day) and long ICU stay ( > 1 day). A case-mix corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated hospital variation. The impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, 2110 patients from 16 hospitals were included. Median length of postoperative ICU stay was 1 day [hospital variation: 0-4]. The percentage of short ICU stay ranged from 0 to 91% among hospitals. Corrected for case-mix, 7 hospitals had statistically significantly higher short ICU stay rates and 6 hospitals had lower rates. ICU readmission, in-hospital/30-day mortality, failure to rescue, postoperative pneumonia, cardiac complications and anastomotic leakage were not associated with hospital variation in length of ICU stay. Total length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in hospitals with relatively short ICU stay. CONCLUSION: This study showed significant hospital variation in postoperative length of ICU stay after MIE. Short ICU stay was associated with shorter overall hospital admission and did not negatively impact short-term surgical outcomes. More selected use of ICU resources could result in a national significant cost reduction

Postoperative intensive care unit stay after minimally invasive esophagectomy shows large hospital variation. Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

Introduction: The value of routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been questioned. This study aimed to investigate Dutch hospital variation regarding length of direct postoperative ICU stay, and the impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes. Materials and methods: Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) undergoing curative MIE were included. Length of direct postoperative ICU stay was dichotomized around the national median into short ICU stay ( ≤ 1 day) and long ICU stay ( > 1 day). A case-mix corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated hospital variation. The impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Between 2017 and 2019, 2110 patients from 16 hospitals were included. Median length of postoperative ICU stay was 1 day [hospital variation: 0–4]. The percentage of short ICU stay ranged from 0 to 91% among hospitals. Corrected for case-mix, 7 hospitals had statistically significantly higher short ICU stay rates and 6 hospitals had lower rates. ICU readmission, in-hospital/30-day mortality, failure to rescue, postoperative pneumonia, cardiac complications and anastomotic leakage were not associated with hospital variation in length of ICU stay. Total length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in hospitals with relatively short ICU stay. Conclusion: This study showed significant hospital variation in postoperative length of ICU stay after MIE. Short ICU stay was associated with shorter overall hospital admission and did not negatively impact short-term surgical outcomes. More selected use of ICU resources could result in a national significant cost reduction

Population-based study on practice variation regarding preoperative systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases and impact on short-term outcomes

Introduction: Definitions regarding resectability and hence indications for preoperative chemotherapy vary. Use of preoperative chemotherapy may influence postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to assess the variation in use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM and related postoperative outcomes in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: All patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018 were included from a national database. Case-mix factors contributing to the use of preoperative chemotherapy, hospital variation and postoperative outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Postoperative outcomes were postoperative complicated course (PCC), 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality. Results: In total, 4469 patients were included of whom 1314 patients received preoperative chemotherapy and 3155 patients did not. Patients receiving chemotherapy were significantly younger (mean age (+SD) 66.3 (10.4) versus 63.2 (10.2) p < 0.001) and had less comorbidity (Charlson scores 2+ (24% versus 29%, p = 0.010). Unadjusted hospital variation concerning administration of preoperative chemotherapy ranged between 2% and 55%. After adjusting for case-mix factors, three hospitals administered significantly more preoperative chemotherapy than expected and six administered significantly less preoperative chemotherapy than expected. PCC was 12.1%, 30-day morbidity was 8.8% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. No association between preoperative chemotherapy and PCC (OR 1.24, 0.98–1.55, p = 0.065), 30-day morbidity (OR 1.05, 0.81–1.39, p = 0.703) or with 30-day mortality (OR 1.22, 0.75–2.09, p = 0.467) was found. Conclusion: Significant hospital variation in the use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM was present in the Netherlands. No association between postoperative outcomes and use of preoperative chemotherapy was found

A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study to Evaluate the Association of Lymph Node Retrieval with Long-Term Overall Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Background: Previous studies evaluating the association of lymph node (LN) yield and survival presented conflicting results and many may be influenced by confounding and stage migration. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether the quality indicator ‘retrieval of at least 15 LNs’ is associated with better long-term survival and more accurate pathological staging in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and resection. Methods: Data of esophageal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. Patients with < 15 and ≥ 15 LNs were compared after propensity score matching based on patient and tumor characteristics. The primary endpoint was 3-year survival. To evaluate the effect of LN yield on the accuracy of pathological staging, pathological N stage was evaluated and 3-year survival was analyzed in a subgroup of patients with node-negative disease. Results: In 2260 of 3281 patients (67%) ≥ 15 LNs were retrieved. In total, 992 patients with ≥ 15 LNs were matched to 992 patients with < 15 LNs. The 3-year survival did not differ between the two groups (57% vs. 54%; p = 0.28). pN+ was scored in 41% of patients with ≥ 15 LNs versus 35% of patients with < 15 LNs. For node-negative patients, the 3-year survival was significantly better for patients with ≥ 15 LNs (69% vs. 61%, p = 0.01). Conclusions: n this propensity score-matched cohort, 3-year survival was comparable for patients with ≥ 15 LNs, although increasing nodal yield was associated with more accurate staging. In node-negative patients, 3-year survival was higher for patients with ≥ 15 LNs

A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study to Evaluate the Association of Lymph Node Retrieval with Long-Term Overall Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Background: Previous studies evaluating the association of lymph node (LN) yield and survival presented conflicting results and many may be influenced by confounding and stage migration. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether the quality indicator ‘retrieval of at least 15 LNs’ is associated with better long-term survival and more accurate pathological staging in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and resection. Methods: Data of esophageal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. Patients with < 15 and ≥ 15 LNs were compared after propensity score matching based on patient and tumor characteristics. The primary endpoint was 3-year survival. To evaluate the effect of LN yield on the accuracy of pathological staging, pathological N stage was evaluated and 3-year survival was analyzed in a subgroup of patients with node-negative disease. Results: In 2260 of 3281 patients (67%) ≥ 15 LNs were retrieved. In total, 992 patients with ≥ 15 LNs were matched to 992 patients with < 15 LNs. The 3-year survival did not differ between the two groups (57% vs. 54%; p = 0.28). pN+ was scored in 41% of patients with ≥ 15 LNs versus 35% of patients with < 15 LNs. For node-negative patients, the 3-year survival was significantly better for patients with ≥ 15 LNs (69% vs. 61%, p = 0.01). Conclusions: n this propensity score-matched cohort, 3-year survival was comparable for patients with ≥ 15 LNs, although increasing nodal yield was associated with more accurate staging. In node-negative patients, 3-year survival was higher for patients with ≥ 15 LNs

Reporting national outcomes after esophagectomy and gastrectomy according to the esophageal complications consensus group (ECCG)

Objective:This nation-wide population-based study aimed to report postoperative morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy and gastrectomy in the Netherlands according to the definitions of the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG).Background:To standardize international outcome reporting in esophageal surgery, the ECCG developed a standardized outcomes set.Methods:For this national cohort study, all patients undergoing esophagectomy or gastrectomy for cancer between 2016 and 2017 were selected from the Dutch Upper gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. In a random sample of hospitals, data completeness and accuracy were validated by reabstraction of the data. The investigated outcomes in the present study were postoperative complications, major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III), and 30-day mortality, according to definitions of the ECCG.Results:A total of 2545 patients from 22 hospitals were included. The completeness of the Dutch Upper gastrointestinal Cancer Audit was estimated at 99.8%. Data accuracy on different items was 94% to 100%. After esophagectomy, 1046 of 1617 patients (65%) had a postoperative complication including 468 patients (29%) with a major complication. Most common complications were pneumonia (21%), esophago-enteric leak from anastomosis, staple line or localized conduit necrosis (19%), and atrial dysrhythmia (15%). The 30-day mortality was 1.7%. After gastrectomy, 397 of 928 patients (42%) had a postoperative complication including 180 patients (19%) with a major complication. Most common complications were pneumonia (12%), esophago-enteric leak from anastomosis, staple line or localized conduit necrosis (9%), and acute delirium (5%). The 30-day mortality was 4.4%.Conclusions:Reporting complications according to the ECCG platform is feasible in the Netherlands and facilitates international benchmarking

Implementation of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Setting to National Practice

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the external validity of the randomized TIME trial, when minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was implemented nationally in the Netherlands, using data from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA) for transthoracic esophagectomy. METHODS: Original patient data from the TIME trial were extracted along with data from the DUCA dataset (2011-2017). Multivariate analysis, with adjustment for patient factors, tumor factors, and year of surgery, was performed for the effect of MIE versus open esophagectomy on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients from the TIME trial (59 MIE v 56 open) and 4,605 patients from the DUCA dataset (2,652 MIE v 1,953 open) were included. In the TIME trial, univariate analysis showed that MIE reduced pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. On the contrary, in the DUCA dataset, MIE was associated with increased total and pulmonary complications and reoperations; however, benefits included increased proportion of R0 margin and lymph nodes harvested, and reduced 30-day mortality. Multivariate analysis from the TIME trial showed that MIE reduced pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.61). In the DUCA dataset, MIE was associated with increased total complications (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.57), pulmonary complications (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.74), reoperations (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42 to 2.14), and length of hospital stay. Multivariate analysis of the combined and MIE datasets showed that inclusion in the TIME trial was associated with a reduction in reoperations, Clavien-Dindo grade > 1 complications, and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: When adopted nationally outside the TIME trial, MIE was associated with an increase in total and pulmonary complications and reoperation rate. This may reflect nonexpert surgeons outside of high-volume centers performing this minimally invasive technique in a nonstandardized fashion outside of a controlled environment