Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue

ArticleAçık Erişim

Özet

Introduction: Failure to rescue (FTR) is an important outcome measure after esophagectomy and reflects mortality after postoperative complications. Differences in FTR have been associated with hospital resection volume. However, insight into how centers manage complications and achieve their outcomes is lacking. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a main contributor to FTR. This study aimed to assess differences in FTR after AL between centers, and to identify factors that explain these differences. Methods: TENTACLE – Esophagus is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, which included 1509 patients with AL after esophagectomy. Differences in FTR were assessed between low-volume (<20 resections), middle-volume (20–60 resections) and high-volume centers (≥60 resections). Mediation analysis was performed using logistic regression, including possible mediators for FTR: case-mix, hospital resources, leak severity and treatment. Results: FTR after AL was 11.7%. After adjustment for confounders, FTR was lower in high-volume vs. low-volume (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2–0.8), but not versus middle-volume centers (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.5–1.0). After mediation analysis, differences in FTR were found to be explained by lower leak severity, lower secondary ICU readmission rate and higher availability of therapeutic modalities in high-volume centers. No statistically significant direct effect of hospital volume was found: high-volume vs. low-volume 0.86 (95%CI 0.4–1.7), high-volume vs. middle-volume OR 0.86 (95%CI 0.5–1.4). Conclusion: Lower FTR in high-volume compared with low-volume centers was explained by lower leak severity, less secondary ICU readmissions and higher availability of therapeutic modalities. To reduce FTR after AL, future studies should investigate effective strategies to reduce leak severity and prevent secondary ICU readmission. © 2023 The Authors

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/12460Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorUbels, Sander
dc.contributor.authorMatthée, Eric
dc.contributor.authorVerstegen, Moniek
dc.contributor.authorKlarenbeek, Bastiaan
dc.contributor.authorBouwense, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorvan Berge Henegouwen, Mark I.
dc.contributor.authorDaams, Freek
dc.contributor.authorDekker, Jan Willem T.
dc.contributor.authorvan Det, Marc J.
dc.contributor.authorvan Esser, Stijn
dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, Ewen A.
dc.contributor.authorHaveman, Jan Willem
dc.contributor.authorNieuwenhuijzen, Grard
dc.contributor.authorSiersema, Peter D.
dc.contributor.authorWijnhoven, Bas
dc.contributor.authorHannink, Gerjon
dc.contributor.authorvan Workum, Frans
dc.contributor.authorRosman, Camiel
dc.contributor.authorSlootmans, Cettela A.M.
dc.contributor.authorUltee, Gijs
dc.contributor.authorGisbertz, Suzanne S.
dc.contributor.authorEshuis, Wietse J.
dc.contributor.authorKalff, Marianne C.
dc.contributor.authorFeenstra, Minke L.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Peet, Donald L.
dc.contributor.authorStam, Wessel T.
dc.contributor.authorVan Etten, Boudewijn
dc.contributor.authorPoelmann, Floris
dc.contributor.authorVuurberg, Nienke
dc.contributor.authorWillem van den Berg, Jan
dc.contributor.authorMartijnse, Ingrid S.
dc.contributor.authorMatthijsen, Robert M.
dc.contributor.authorLuyer, Misha
dc.contributor.authorCurvers, Wout
dc.contributor.authorNieuwenhuijzen, Tom
dc.contributor.authorTaselaar, Annick E.
dc.contributor.authorKouwenhoven, Ewout A.
dc.contributor.authorLubbers, Merel
dc.contributor.authorSosef, Meindert
dc.contributor.authorLecot, Frederik
dc.contributor.authorGeraedts, Tessa C.M.
dc.contributor.authorvan den Wildenberg, Frits
dc.contributor.authorKelder, Wendy
dc.contributor.authorBaas, Peter C.
dc.contributor.authorde Haas, Job W.A.
dc.contributor.authorHartgrink, Henk H.
dc.contributor.authorBahadoer, Renu R.
dc.contributor.authorvan Sandick, Johanna W.
dc.contributor.authorHartemink, Koen J.
dc.contributor.authorVeenhof, Xander
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-18T20:27:21.486675233Z
dc.date.available2026-10-18T20:27:21.486675233Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Failure to rescue (FTR) is an important outcome measure after esophagectomy and reflects mortality after postoperative complications. Differences in FTR have been associated with hospital resection volume. However, insight into how centers manage complications and achieve their outcomes is lacking. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a main contributor to FTR. This study aimed to assess differences in FTR after AL between centers, and to identify factors that explain these differences. Methods: TENTACLE – Esophagus is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, which included 1509 patients with AL after esophagectomy. Differences in FTR were assessed between low-volume (<20 resections), middle-volume (20–60 resections) and high-volume centers (≥60 resections). Mediation analysis was performed using logistic regression, including possible mediators for FTR: case-mix, hospital resources, leak severity and treatment. Results: FTR after AL was 11.7%. After adjustment for confounders, FTR was lower in high-volume vs. low-volume (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2–0.8), but not versus middle-volume centers (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.5–1.0). After mediation analysis, differences in FTR were found to be explained by lower leak severity, lower secondary ICU readmission rate and higher availability of therapeutic modalities in high-volume centers. No statistically significant direct effect of hospital volume was found: high-volume vs. low-volume 0.86 (95%CI 0.4–1.7), high-volume vs. middle-volume OR 0.86 (95%CI 0.5–1.4). Conclusion: Lower FTR in high-volume compared with low-volume centers was explained by lower leak severity, less secondary ICU readmissions and higher availability of therapeutic modalities. To reduce FTR after AL, future studies should investigate effective strategies to reduce leak severity and prevent secondary ICU readmission. © 2023 The Authors
dc.description.sponsorshipThe TENTACLE – Esophagus study received funding from Medtronic company. The study was performed independently, and Medtronic had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit to manuscript.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010
dc.identifier.endpage982
dc.identifier.issn0748-7983
dc.identifier.issue5
dc.identifier.pmid36732207
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85149737025
dc.identifier.startpage974
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/12460
dc.identifier.volume49
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherW.B. Saunders Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectAnastomotic leak
dc.subjectComplications
dc.subjectEsophagectomy
dc.subjectFailure to rescue
dc.subjectPractice variation
dc.subjectHospital Mortality
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectPostoperative Complications
dc.subjectRetrospective Studies
dc.subjectantibiotic agent
dc.subjectmethylene blue
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectanastomosis leakage
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectclinical outcome
dc.subjectcohort analysis
dc.subjectcomputer assisted tomography
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectdisease severity
dc.subjectesophagoscopy
dc.subjectesophagus anastomosis
dc.subjectesophagus cancer
dc.subjectfailure to rescue (health care)
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjecthigh volume hospital
dc.subjecthospital readmission
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectintensive care unit
dc.subjectinterventional ultrasonography
dc.subjectlaparoscopy
dc.titlePractice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.scopus21
rdl.departmentErzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey.
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexPUBMED