The Complexity of Defining Postoperative Pneumonia After Esophageal Cancer Surgery: A Spectrum of Lung Injury Rather Than a Simple Infective Complication?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the spectrum of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-defined pneumonia after esophageal cancer surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Pneumonia is commonly documented after esophageal cancer surgery, and reducing its incidence is central to both ERAS development and to the evidence-base for minimally invasive approaches. The existing definitions of pneumonia based on hospital acquired pneumonia classifications may be suboptimal in this context and merits strict academic scrutiny. METHODS: Patients (2013-2018) treated with curative intent by open surgery were studied. Pneumonia was defined per the CDC definition. Risk factors and associations were analyzed, as was the implications of positive cultures. Multivariable logistic regression examined independently predictive factors of pneumonia and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: Of 343 patients, 56 (16%) had defined pneumonia, 22 (39%) with positive cultures. Preoperative respiratory disease predicted pneumonia ( P = 0.043). Neoadjuvant therapy was significantly ( P = 0.004) associated with culture negative pneumonia, and age ( P = 0.001) with culture positive pneumonia. In multivariable analysis, pneumonia was associated ( P < 0.05) with respiratory comorbidity, tumor site, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Pneumonia did not impact on overall survival (P = 0.807). DISCUSSION: CDC-defined pneumonia occurred in 16% of cases. Culture-negative pneumonia accounted for 61% of cases and was significantly associated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Pneumonia as currently defined seems to represent a spectrum of etiology and severity in the post-esoph-agectomy patient, with infection per se rarely proven, suggesting a need to reevaluate its definition, severity classification, and preventive and treatment strategies.

Prospective study of surgical site infections post-open esophageal cancer surgery, and the impact of care bundles.

SSIs represent common infection-related morbidity following major surgery. Modern care bundles have been established as prophylactic measures aimed at preventing SSI occurring postoperatively. SSI incidence and data on common culprit pathogens post-esophagectomy for cancer have not been previously reported. Patients (2013-2018) treated with curative intent were studied. SSI was defined as per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) definition. A care bundle pathway following the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for prevention of SSIs was introduced in 2013 and was audited quarterly. Risk factors and associations of SSIs were analyzed, as was the prevalence of isolated pathogens. Multivariable logistic regression examined independently predictive factors of SSIs and oncologic outcomes. Of 343 patients, 34 (9.9%) developed a postoperative SSI, with a median (range) of 8 (6-17). Quarterly audit carried out over 6 years showed no significant annual variance or trend. The most prevalent pathogen cultured was Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) in nine patients (32%) followed by Candida albicans (29%), Escherichia coli (14%), and Enterococcus faecium (11%). SSI was significantly associated with pneumonia (P = 0.001), respiratory failure (P = 0.014), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.004), anastomotic leak (P < 0.001), and in-hospital blood transfusions (P = 0.031). SSI did not impact the overall survival (P = 0.951). SSI rates can be maintained at less than 10% using strict care bundles and regular audit. The most common culprit pathogen is gram-positive MSSA representing 32% of cases. These data are novel and may represent a modern benchmark for SSI post-open esophagectomy for cancer. This study highlights the incidence and associations of SSI post-esophageal cancer surgery.

Objective improvement with coronary anastomosis simulation training: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery anastomosis training and assessment are vital for patient safety and for conferring a prognostic benefit. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to analyse the impact of simulation on coronary anastomosis proficiency in terms of time taken and skill score. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases on 10 October 2020, using the terms 'Coronary anastomosis simulation' or 'vascular anastomosis simulation' and 'anastomosis simulation'. Studies included had objective measurement of scores of before and after simulation. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan, version 5.4 (Cochrane Library). RESULTS: From a pool of 1687 articles, 12 articles evaluating the use of simulation in teaching coronary anastomosis were identified, with objective scores at baseline and after simulation. The 12 papers included 274 subjects. Data on 223 subjects could be extracted for analysis in performing coronary anastomosis in a simulated environment. Eight trials evaluated improvement in time and 12 trials evaluated performance using an objective evaluation score. In comparison with no formal simulation training, simulation was associated with improved skill in a five-point scale (standardized mean difference 1.68 (95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 2.13; P < 0.001)) and time (mean difference 205.9 s (95 per cent c.i. 133.62 to 278.18; P < 0.001)) in trials included in the meta-analysis. Furthermore, novice cardiothoracic surgeons benefited more from simulation as regards time improvement compared with senior cardiothoracic surgeons (293 versus 120 s improvement; P = 0.003). Fidelity of simulator did not have a significant effect on rates of improvement. CONCLUSION: Simulation-based training in coronary anastomosis is associated with improved time efficiency and overall performance in comparison with no intervention. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimum timing of trainees progressing from simulation training to live operating.