Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post-esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early oral intake (EOI: initiated within 1 day) and early nasogastric tube removal (ENR: removed ≤2 days) post-esophagectomy is controversial and subject to significant variation. AIM: Our aim is to provide the most up-to-date evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing both topics. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (1946-06/2019) for RCTs that investigated the effect of EOI and/or ENR post-esophagectomy with gastric conduit for reconstruction. Our main outcomes of interest were anastomotic leak, aspiration pneumonia, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Pooled mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) estimates were obtained using a DerSimonian random effects model. RESULTS: Two reviewers screened 613 abstracts and identified 6 RCTs eligible for inclusion; 2 regarding EOI and 4 for ENR. For EOI (2 studies, n = 389), was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500; I2 : 0%), aspiration pneumonia (RR: 1.018; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500), mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.020, 50.0). The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group: LOS (MD: -2.509; 95% CI: -3.489, -1.529; I2 : 90.44%). For ENR (4 studies, n = 295), ENR (removed at POD0-2 vs. 5-8 days) was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.11; 95% CI 0.336, 3.697; I2 : 25.75%) and pneumonia group (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.336, 3.697; I2 : 25.75%), mortality (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.328, 2.308; I2 : 0%)or LOS (MD: 1.618; 95% CI: -1.447, 4.683; I2 : 73.03%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that EOI as well as ENR post-esophagectomy do not significantly increase the risk of anastomotic leak, pneumonia, and mortality. The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group, and there was no significant difference in the ENR group. A paucity of RCTs has evaluated this question, highlighting the need for further high-quality evidence to address these vital aspects to post-esophagectomy care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42019138600.

Interventions to prevent anastomotic leak after esophageal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common and serious complication following esophagectomy. We aimed to provide an up-to-date review and critical appraisal of the efficacy and safety of all previous interventions aiming to reduce AL risk. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 1946 to January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to minimize esophagogastric AL. Pooled risk ratios (RR) for AL were obtained using a random effects model. RESULTS: Two reviewers screened 441 abstracts and identified 17 RCTs eligible for inclusion; 11 studies were meta-analyzed. Omentoplasty significantly reduced the risk of AL by 78% [RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.50] compared to conventional anastomosis (3 studies, n = 611 patients). Early removal of NG tube significantly reduced the risk of AL by 62% [RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.65] compared to prolonged NG tube removal (2 studies, n = 293 patients); Stapled anastomosis did not significantly reduce the risk of AL [RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.87] compared to hand-sewn anastomosis (6 studies, n = 1454 patients). The quality of evidence was high for omentoplasty (vs. conventional anastomosis), moderate for early NG tube removal (vs. prolonged NG tube removal), and very low for stapled anastomosis (vs. hand-sewn anastomosis). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis to summarize the graded quality of evidence for all RCT interventions designed to reduce the risk of AL following esophagectomy. Our findings demonstrated that omentoplasty significantly reduced the risk of AL with a high quality of evidence. Although early NG tube removal significantly reduced AL risk, there is a need for further research to strengthen the quality of evidence for this finding. Evidence profiles presented in our review may help inform the development of future clinical practice recommendations. Systematic review registration: CRD42019127181.

From Emergency Department Visit to Readmission After Esophagectomy: Analysis of Burden and Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department (ED) visits occur after esophagectomy. We aimed to identify the incidence of and risk factors for conversion from ED visit to inpatient admission. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of consecutive esophagectomies at a tertiary Canadian center (1999 to 2014). Multivariable regression analyses identified factors associated with conversion from ED visit to admission. RESULTS: There were 520 esophagectomies with 6% inhospital mortality (n = 31). Of those discharged, 29.7% (n = 145) had one or more emergency visit and 43.4% (n = 63) of these patients were readmitted to the hospital. First-time ED visits resulted in inpatient conversion 23.4% of the time (n = 34); successive ED visits resulted in increasing conversion. On multivariable analysis, anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1 to 6.01; P = .05) was independently associated with higher odds of conversion to admission. Sensitivity analysis using Poisson regression to model conversion as a rate identified that living in regions further away was associated with lower conversion rate to admission (risk ratio 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.94; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Although postesophagectomy ED utilization is high, the majority of visits do not convert to admission. With each increasing ED visit, likelihood of converting to admission increases. Anastomotic leakage was associated with higher odds of conversion to admission, possibly related to development of strictures. Access to urgent outpatient endoscopy may help reduce the incidence of ED visits and admission. Although living in regions further away is associated with lower conversion rates to admission at the index hospital, that may be due to patients utilizing closer local hospitals.

Emergency department use is high after esophagectomy and feeding tube problems are the biggest culprit.

OBJECTIVES: Esophagectomy is a complex operation with potential for prolonged recovery. We aimed to identify the incidence of and risk factors for any and frequent emergency department visits within 1 year of esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed looking at consecutive esophagectomies at a tertiary Canadian center (1999-2014). Multivariable analyses identified factors associated with any emergency department visits and frequent emergency department use (≥3 visits) within 1 year postesophagectomy. RESULTS: There were 520 esophagectomies with in-hospital mortality of 6% (n = 31). Of those discharged, 29.7% (n = 145) had ≥ 1 emergency department visit. Most common causes were feeding tube problems (39.3%; n = 57) and dysphagia/stricture (13.1%; n = 19). Higher income (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.42 per $10,000) and use of hybrid/minimally invasive esophagectomy (aOR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.71-6.11) were independently associated with having emergency department visits. Patients with hybrid/minimally invasive esophagectomy were discharged earlier than others (P < .0001). Living outside of our metropolitan area (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) and having surgery in the later years of the study period (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; P = .006) were both independently associated with lower odds of emergency department visits. Forty-three patients (8.8%) were frequent emergency department users, with the most common causes of repeat emergency visits being feeding tube problems. Living outside of our metropolitan area was associated with lower odds of frequent emergency visits (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.45). CONCLUSIONS: There is high emergency department use within 1 year postesophagectomy. Patients living farther away from our hospital had a lower rate of emergency department use. It is possible that they are utilizing emergency departments nearer to home; this needs further study. Feeding tube problems are the biggest culprits and are potentially modifiable.

Is tissue still the issue? Lobectomy for suspicious lung nodules without confirmation of malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Histologic confirmation of malignancy has been indicated for a suspicious lung nodule prior to resection. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not foregoing routine tissue biopsy increased the incidence of lobectomy for benign lesions. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of 256 patients who underwent thoracoscopic or open lobectomy for a confirmed or suspected pulmonary malignancy, with or without tissue diagnosis. Clinical, radiographic, and pathologic data were compared. RESULTS: Among 256 patients, 127 had attempted biopsy (group A) and 129 had no biopsy procedure (group B). There was no significant difference in the incidence of benign resections between the groups (Group A = 4 (3.2%) benign pathology vs group B = 9 (7.0%; P = 0.16). Group B had significantly lower operative time (127.1 vs 112.3 minutes; P = 0.004) and intraoperative complications (23 vs 37 patients; P = 0.03). There was a trend toward longer hospital stay and surgical waiting time in group A (6.6 vs 5.2 days, P = 0.24; 92.4 vs 66.2 days; P = 0.14, respectively). CONCLUSION: Foregoing biopsies and proceeding to lobectomy in selected patients with suspicious lung nodules is safe, did not increase the incidence of resected benign pathology, and may decrease surgical wait time. Patients should be carefully evaluated and counseled.