The United States experience with diagnosing and treating esophageal cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

The downstream effects on healthcare delivery during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine how the healthcare environment surrounding the pandemic affected the oncologic care of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer. This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients in the National Cancer Database (2019-2020). Patients with esophageal cancer diagnoses were divided into pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020) groups. Patient demographics, cancer-related variables, and treatment modalities were compared. Among 26,231 esophageal cancer patients, 14,024 patients (53.5%) were in the pre-pandemic cohort and 12,207 (46.5%) were in the pandemic cohort. After controlling for demographics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to have poorly differentiated tumors (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.42), pathologic T3 disease compared to T1 (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53), positive lymph nodes on pathology (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14-1.64), and to be pathologic stage IV (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29-1.76). After controlling for oncologic characteristics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to require at least two courses of systemic therapy (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.14) and to be offered palliative care (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.22). While these patients were offered curative therapy at lower rates, this became non-significant after risk-adjustment (p = .15). The pandemic healthcare environment was associated with significantly increased risk-adjusted rates of patients presenting with advanced esophageal cancer. While this led to significant differences in treatment, most of these differences became non-significant after controlling for oncologic factors.

Preoperative Prediction of Postoperative Infections Using Machine Learning and Electronic Health Record Data.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate preoperative risk of postoperative infections using structured electronic health record (EHR) data. BACKGROUND: Surveillance and reporting of postoperative infections is primarily done through costly, labor-intensive manual chart reviews on a small sample of patients. Automated methods using statistical models applied to postoperative EHR data have shown promise to augment manual review as they can cover all operations in a timely manner. However, there are no specific models for risk-adjusting infectious complication rates using EHR data. METHODS: Preoperative EHR data from 30,639 patients (2013-2019) were linked to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program preoperative data and postoperative infection outcomes data from 5 hospitals in the University of Colorado Health System. EHR data included diagnoses, procedures, operative variables, patient characteristics, and medications. Lasso and the knockoff filter were used to perform controlled variable selection. Outcomes included surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, sepsis/septic shock, and pneumonia up to 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: Among >15,000 candidate predictors, 7 were chosen for the surgical site infection model and 6 for each of the urinary tract infection, sepsis, and pneumonia models. Important variables included preoperative presence of the specific outcome, wound classification, comorbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each model ranged from 0.73 to 0.89. CONCLUSIONS: Parsimonious preoperative models for predicting postoperative infection risk using EHR data were developed and showed comparable performance to existing American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk models that use manual chart review. These models can be used to estimate risk-adjusted postoperative infection rates applied to large volumes of EHR data in a timely manner.

Anatomic Lung Resection Outcomes After Implementation of a Universal Thoracic ERAS Protocol Across a Diverse Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate how implementing a thoracic enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol impacted surgical outcomes after elective anatomic lung resection. BACKGROUND: The effect of implementing the ERAS Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgery thoracic ERAS protocol on postoperative outcomes throughout an entire health care system has not yet been reported. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study within one health care system (January 2019-March, 2023). A thoracic ERAS protocol was implemented on May 1, 2021 for elective anatomic lung resections, and postoperative outcomes were tracked using the electronic health record and Vizient data. The primary outcome was overall morbidity; secondary outcomes included individual complications, length of stay, opioid use, chest tube duration, and total cost. Patients were grouped into pre-ERAS and post-ERAS cohorts. Bivariable comparisons were performed using independent t -test, χ 2 , or Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounders. RESULTS: There were 1007 patients in the cohort; 450 (44.7%) were in the post-ERAS group. Mean age was 66.2 years; most patients were female (65.1%), white (83.8%), had a body mass index between 18.5 and 29.9 (69.7%), and were ASA class 3 (80.6%). Patients in the postimplementation group had lower risk-adjusted rates of any morbidity, respiratory complication, pneumonia, surgical site infection, arrhythmias, infections, opioid usage, ICU use, and shorter postoperative length of stay (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative outcomes were improved after the implementation of an evidence-based thoracic ERAS protocol throughout the health care system. This study validates the ERAS Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgery guidelines and demonstrates that simultaneous multihospital implementation can be feasible and effective.

The Effect of Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Prior to Esophagectomy on Anastomotic Stricture Rate and Comparison with Esophagectomy-Alone Controls.

BACKGROUND: Benign anastomotic stricture is a recognized complication following esophagectomy. Laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) prior to esophagectomy has been associated with decreased anastomotic leak rates; however, its effect on stricture and the need for subsequent endoscopic intervention is not well studied. METHODS: This was a case-control study at an academic medical center using consecutive patients undergoing oncologic esophagectomies (July 2012-July 2022). Our institution initiated an LGIP protocol on 1 January 2021. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stricture within 1 year of esophagectomy, while secondary outcomes were stricture severity and frequency of interventions within the 6 months following stricture. Bivariable comparisons were performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Mann-Whitney U tests. Multivariable regression controlling for confounders was performed to generate risk-adjust odds ratios and to identify the independent effect of LGIP. RESULTS: Of 253 esophagectomies, 42 (16.6%) underwent LGIP prior to esophagectomy. There were 45 (17.7%) anastomotic strictures requiring endoscopic intervention, including three patients who underwent LGIP and 42 who did not. Median time to stricture was 144 days. Those who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop anastomotic stricture (7.1% vs. 19.9%; p = 0.048). After controlling for confounders, this difference was no longer significant (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.82; p = 0.29). Of those who developed stricture, there was a trend toward less severe strictures and decreased need for endoscopic dilation in the LGIP group (all p < 0.20). CONCLUSION: LGIP may reduce the rate and severity of symptomatic anastomotic stricture following esophagectomy. A multi-institutional trial evaluating the effect of LGIP on stricture and other anastomotic complications is warranted.

The deimplementation of laboratory testing in low-risk patients as recommended by the American society of anesthesiologists: An ACS-NSQIP longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) published guidelines recommending against routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients to reduce unnecessary medical expenditures. The aim of this study was to assess the change in routine preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk versus higher-risk patients before and after release of these guidelines. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database, 2005-2018, was separated into low-risk versus higher-risk patients based upon a previously published stratification. The guideline implementation date was defined as January 2013. Changes in preoperative laboratory testing over time were compared between low- and higher-risk patients. A difference-in-differences model was applied. The primary outcome included any laboratory test obtained ≤90 days prior to surgery. RESULTS: Of 7,507,991 patients, 972,431 (13.0%) were defined as low-risk and 6,535,560 (87.0%) higher-risk. Use of any preoperative laboratory test declined in low-risk patients from 66.5% before to 59.6% after guidelines, a 6.9 percentage point reduction, versus 93.0%-91.9% in higher-risk patients, a 1.1 percentage point reduction (p < 0.0001, comparing percentage point reductions). After risk-adjustment, the adjusted odds ratio for having any preoperative laboratory test after versus before the guidelines was 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) in low-risk versus 0.93 (0.92-0.94) in higher-risk patients. In low-risk patients, lack of any preoperative testing was not associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While a majority of low-risk patients continue to receive preoperative laboratory testing not recommended by the ASA, there has been a decline after implementation of guidelines. Continued effort should be directed at the deimplementation of routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients.

Prospective Evaluation of a Universally Applied Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Protocol Prior to Esophagectomy with Comparison with Historical Controls.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak after esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Our institution began performing laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) with ligation of the left gastric and short gastric vessels prior to esophagectomy in all patients presenting with resectable esophageal cancer. We hypothesized that LGIP may decrease the incidence and severity of anastomotic leak. METHODS: Patients were prospectively evaluated following the universal application of LGIP prior to esophagectomy protocol in January 2021 until August 2022. Outcomes were compared with patients who underwent esophagectomy without LGIP from a prospectively maintained database from 2010 to 2020. RESULTS: We compared 42 patients who underwent LGIP followed by esophagectomy with 222 who underwent esophagectomy without LGIP. Age, sex, comorbidities, and clinical stage were similar between groups. Outpatient LGIP was generally well tolerated, with one patient experiencing prolonged gastroparesis. Median time from LGIP to esophagectomy was 31 days. Mean operative time and blood loss were not significantly different between groups. Patients who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop an anastomotic leak following esophagectomy (7.1% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.038). This finding persisted on multivariate analysis [odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.42, p = 0.029]. The occurrence of any post-esophagectomy complication was similar between groups (40.5% vs. 46.0%, p = 0.514), but patients who underwent LGIP had shorter length of stay [10 (9-11) vs. 12 (9-15), p = 0.020]. CONCLUSIONS: LGIP prior to esophagectomy is associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leak and length of hospital stay. Further, multi-institutional studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Preoperative Prediction of Unplanned Reoperation in a Broad Surgical Population.

INTRODUCTION: Unplanned reoperation is an undesirable outcome with considerable risks and an increasingly assessed quality of care metric. There are no preoperative prediction models for reoperation after an index surgery in a broad surgical population in the literature. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) preoperatively predicts 12 postoperative adverse events using 8 preoperative variables, but its ability to predict unplanned reoperation has not been assessed. This study's objective was to determine whether the SURPAS model could accurately predict unplanned reoperation. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program adult database, 2012-2018. An unplanned reoperation was defined as any unintended operation within 30 d of an initial scheduled operation. The 8-variable SURPAS model and a 29-variable "full" model, incorporating all available American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program nonlaboratory preoperative variables, were developed using multiple logistic regression and compared using discrimination and calibration metrics: C-indices (C), Hosmer-Lemeshow observed-to-expected plots, and Brier scores (BSs). The internal chronological validation of the SURPAS model was conducted using "training" (2012-2017) and "test" (2018) datasets. RESULTS: Of 5,777,108 patients, 162,387 (2.81%) underwent an unplanned reoperation. The SURPAS model's C-index of 0.748 was 99.20% of that for the full model (C = 0.754). Hosmer-Lemeshow plots showed good calibration for both models and BSs were similar (BS = 0.0264, full; BS = 0.0265, SURPAS). Internal chronological validation results were similar for the training (C = 0.749, BS = 0.0268) and test (C = 0.748, BS = 0.0250) datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The SURPAS model accurately predicted unplanned reoperation and was internally validated. Unplanned reoperation can be integrated into the SURPAS tool to provide preoperative risk assessment of this outcome, which could aid patient risk education.

Does Work Relative Value Unit Measure Surgical Complexity for Risk Adjustment of Surgical Outcomes?

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the work relative value unit (workRVU) of a patient's operation can be useful as a measure of surgical complexity for the risk adjustment of surgical outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2018). We examined the associations of workRVU of the patient's primary operation with preoperative patient characteristics and associations with postoperative complications. We performed forward selection multiple logistic regression analysis to determine the predictive importance of workRVU. We then generated prediction models using patient characteristics with and without workRVU and compared c-indexes to assess workRVU's additive predictive value. RESULTS: 7,507,991 operations were included. Patients who were underweight, functionally dependent, transferred from an acute care hospital, had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class or who had medical comorbidities had operations with higher workRVU (all P < 0.0001). The subspecialties with the highest workRVU were neurosurgery (mean = 22.2), thoracic surgery (mean = 21.1), and vascular surgery (mean = 18.8) (P < 0.0001). For all postoperative complications, mean workRVU was higher for patients with the complication than those without (all P < 0.0001). For eight of 12 postoperative complications, workRVU entered the logistic regression models as a predictor variable in the 1st to 4th steps. Addition of workRVU as a preoperative predictive variable improved the c-index of the prediction models. CONCLUSIONS: WorkRVU was associated with sicker patients and patients experiencing postoperative complications and was an important predictor of postoperative complications. When added to a prediction model including patient characteristics, it only marginally improved prediction. This is possibly because workRVU is associated with patient characteristics.

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Surgery: A Comparison of Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity in Elective Operations.

BACKGROUND: Operations performed outpatient offer several benefits. The prevalence of outpatient operations is growing. Consequently, the proportion of patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing outpatient surgery is increasing. We compared 30-day mortality and overall morbidity between outpatient and inpatient elective operations. METHODS: Using the 2005-2018 ACS-NSQIP database, we evaluated trends in percent of hospital outpatient operations performed over time, and the percent of operations done outpatient versus inpatient by CPT code. Patient characteristics were compared for outpatient versus inpatient operations. We compared unadjusted and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and morbidity for inpatient and outpatient operations. RESULTS: A total of 6,494,298 patients were included. The proportion of outpatient operations increased over time, from 37.8% in 2005 to 48.2% in 2018. We analyzed the 50 most frequent operations performed outpatient versus inpatient 25-75% of the time (n = 1,743,097). Patients having outpatient operations were younger (51.6 vs 54.6 years), female (70.3% vs 67.3%), had fewer comorbidities, and lower ASA class (I-II, 69.3% vs. 59.9%). On both unadjusted and risk-adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality and overall morbidity were less likely in outpatient versus inpatient operations. CONCLUSION: In this large multi-specialty analysis, we found that patients undergoing outpatient surgery had lower risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality than those undergoing the same inpatient operation. Patients having outpatient surgery were generally healthier, suggesting careful patient selection occurred even with increasing outpatient operation frequency. Patients and providers can feel reassured that outpatient operations are a safe, reasonable option for selected patients.

Using the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System to Define the "High Risk" Surgical Patient.

BACKGROUND: Defining a "high risk" surgical population remains challenging. Using the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS), we sought to define "high risk" groups for adverse postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the 2009-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. SURPAS calculated probabilities of 12 postoperative adverse events. The Hosmer Lemeshow graphs of deciles of risk and maximum Youden index were compared to define "high risk." RESULTS: Hosmer-Lemeshow plots suggested the "high risk" patient could be defined by the 10th decile of risk. Maximum Youden index found lower cutoff points for defining "high risk" patients and included more patients with events. This resulted in more patients classified as "high risk" and higher number needed to treat to prevent one complication. Some specialties (thoracic, vascular, general) had more "high risk" patients, while others (otolaryngology, plastic) had lower proportions. CONCLUSIONS: SURPAS can define the "high risk" surgical population that may benefit from risk-mitigating interventions.

Associations Between Preoperative Risk, Postoperative Complications, and 30-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities and postoperative complications increase mortality, making early recognition and management critical. It is useful to understand how they are associated with one another. This study assesses associations between comorbidities, complications, and mortality. METHODS: We calculated associations between comorbidities, complications, and 30-day mortality using the 2012-2018 ACS-NSQIP database. We examined the association between mortality and number of complications which complications were most associated with mortality. RESULTS: 5,777,108 patients were included. 30-day mortality was 0.95%. For most comorbidities or postoperative complications, patients with these had higher mortality than patients without. Having ≥ 1 complication increased mortality risk by 32.5-fold (6.5% vs. 0.2%). Mortality rate significantly increased with increasing number of complications, particularly after two or more complications. Bleeding and sepsis were associated with the most deaths. CONCLUSION: The 30-day mortality rate was < 1% but was 32-fold higher in patients with complications and increased rapidly for patients with ≥ 2 complications. Bleeding and sepsis were the most prominent complications associated with mortality.

Survival following lung transplantation: A population-based nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation is the mainstay of treatment for patients with end-stage respiratory failure. This study sought to evaluate survival following transplantation compared to the general population and quantify standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) using a nested case-control study design. METHODS: Control subjects were nonhospitalized inhabitants of the United States identified through the National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Case subjects were adults who underwent lung transplantation between 1990 and 2007 and identified through the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Propensity-matching (5:1, nearest neighbor, caliper = 0.1) was utilized to identify suitable control subjects based on age, sex, race, and location of residency. The primary study endpoint was 10-year survival. RESULTS: About 14,977 lung transplant recipients were matched to 74,885 nonhospitalized US residents. The 10-year survival rate of lung transplant recipients was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 27%-29%). The population expected mortality rate was 19 deaths/100 person-years while the observed ratio was 104 deaths/100 person-years (SMR = 5.39, 95% CI = 5.35-5.43). The largest discrepancies between observed and expected mortality rates were in females (SMR = 5.97), Hispanic (SMR = 10.70), and single lung recipients (SMR = 5.92). SMRs declined over time (1990-1995 = 5.79, 1996-2000 = 5.64, and 2001-2007 = 5.10). Standardized mortality peaks in the first year after transplant and decreases steadily over time. CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplant recipients experience a fivefold higher SMR compared to the nonhospitalized population. Long-term mortality rates have experienced consistent decline over time.

Induction Chemotherapy Plus Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with concurrent radiotherapy (nCRT) is an accepted treatment regimen for patients with potentially curable esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether induction chemotherapy (IC) before nCRT is associated with improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and overall survival (OS) when compared with patients who received nCRT alone for esophageal and GEJ adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), patients who received nCRT and curative-intent esophagectomy for esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma from 2006 to 2015 were included. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy start dates were used to define cohorts who received IC before nCRT (IC + nCRT) versus those who only received concurrent nCRT before surgery. Propensity weighting was conducted to balance patient, disease, and facility covariates between groups. RESULTS: 12,460 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 11,880 (95%) received nCRT and 580 (5%) received IC + nCRT. Following propensity weighting, OS was significantly improved among patients who received IC + nCRT versus nCRT (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74-0.92; p < 0.001) with median OS for the IC + nCRT cohort of 3.38 years versus 2.45 years for nCRT. For patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2015, IC + nCRT was also associated with higher odds of pCR compared with nCRT (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.14-2.21; p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: IC + nCRT was associated with a significant OS benefit as well as higher pCR rate in the more modern patient cohort. These results merit consideration of a sufficiently powered prospective multiinstitutional trial to further evaluate these observed differences.

A Pilot Study of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Across a Broad Sample of Surgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have the potential to aid in surgical decision-making, predict surgical outcomes, assess recovery, and evaluate long-term success. We performed a pilot study testing the ability to use PROs in a broad surgical population in preparation for wide spread use. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Surgical patients completed five Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures during their preoperative encounter in the preanesthesia clinic and again postoperatively via emailed link. Preoperative to postoperative changes in PROMIS scores, factors related to completion of postoperative measures, intercorrelations between PROMIS measures, and numbers of patients with normal function, and mild, moderate, and severe deficits in PROMIS scores were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 393 patients undergoing surgery in 8 specialties completed preoperative PROMIS measures; 239 (60.8%) completed them postoperatively. Physical function (P < 0.0001), pain (P < 0.0001), and cognitive function (P = 0.03) PROMIS scores significantly worsened after surgery but not mental PROMIS scores (P = 0.48). Hispanic and sicker patients had lower completion rates of postoperative measures. Intercorrelations were very high (>0.80) among the physical function and self-efficacy for activities of daily living PROMIS measures. Physical function and pain PROMIS measures had the largest number of patients in the "severe" range after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients across a broad surgical population completed PROMIS measures successfully, both preoperatively and postoperatively, although the postoperative completion rate was lower than other studies reported in the literature. PROMIS scores were reflective of the effects of surgery. Some of the PROMIS measures were highly correlated suggesting that some measures could be eliminated or replaced with measures assessing other important effects of surgery. Consideration could be made to alert health care providers about patients having PROs in the "severe" range for potential intervention.

Conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive esophagectomy portends worse short-term outcomes: an analysis of the National Cancer Database.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to determine factors associated with conversion to open surgery in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, including laparo-thoracoscopic and robotic) and the impact of conversion to open surgery on patient outcomes. METHODS: We included patients from the National Cancer Database with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer who underwent MIE from 2010 to 2015. Patient-, tumor-, and facility-related characteristics as well as short-term and oncologic outcomes were compared between patients who were converted to open surgery and those who underwent successful MIE without conversion to open surgery. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze risk factors for conversion to open surgery from attempted MIE. RESULTS: 7306 patients underwent attempted MIE. Of these patients, 82 of 1487 (5.2%) robotic-assisted esophagectomies were converted to open, compared to 691 of 5737 (12.0%) laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomies (p < 0.001). Conversion rates decreased significantly over the study period (ptrend = 0.010). Patient age, tumor size, and nodal involvement were independently associated with conversion. Facility minimally invasive cumulative volume and robotic approach were associated with decreased conversion rates. Patients whose MIEs were converted had increased 90-day mortality [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.10, 2.02], prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.17, 1.66), and higher rates of unplanned readmission (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.27, 2.20). No significant differences were found in surgical margins or number of lymph nodes harvested. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing attempted MIE requiring conversion to open surgery had significantly worse short-term outcomes including postoperative mortality. Patient factors and hospital experience contribute to conversion rates. These findings should inform surgeons and patients considering esophagectomy for cancer.

Transthoracic Anastomotic Leak After Esophagectomy: Current Trends.

INTRODUCTION: Leaks from intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis are thought to be associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality than leaks from cervical anastomosis. We challenge this assumption and hypothesize that there is no significant difference in mortality based on the location of the esophagogastric anastomosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase databases on all studies published from January 2000 to June 2015, comparing transthoracic (TTE) and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomies. Studies using jejunal or colonic interposition were excluded. Outcomes analyzed were leak rate, leak-associated mortality, overall 30-day mortality, and overall morbidity. Meta-analyses were performed using Mantel-Haenszel statistical analyses on studies reporting leak rates of both approaches. Nominal data are presented as frequency and interquartile range (IQR); measures of the association between treatments and outcomes are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (3 randomized controlled trials) were analyzed comprising of 7167 patients (54 % TTE). TTE approach yields a lower anastomotic leak rate (9.8 %; IQR 6.0-12.2 %) than THE (12 %; IQR 11.6-22.1 %; OR 0.56 [0.34-0.92]), without any significant difference in leak associated mortality (7.1 % TTE vs. 4.6 % THE: OR 1.83 [0.39-8.52]). There was no difference in overall 30-day mortality (3.9 % TTE vs. 4.3 % THE; OR 0.86 [0.66-1.13]) and morbidity (59.0 % TTE vs. 66.6 % THE; OR 0.76 [0.37-1.59]). DISCUSSION: Based on meta-analysis, TTE is associated with a lower leak rate and does not result in higher morbidity or mortality than THE. The previously assumed higher rate of transthoracic anastomotic leak-associated mortality is overstated, thus supporting surgeon discretion and other factors to influence the choice of thoracic versus cervical anastomosis.

Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS): I. Parsimonious, Clinically Meaningful Groups of Postoperative Complications by Factor Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To use factor analysis to cluster the 18 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) perioperative complications into a reproducible, smaller number of clinically meaningful groups of postoperative complications, facilitating and streamlining future study and application in live clinical settings. BACKGROUND: The ACS NSQIP collects and reports on eighteen 30-day postoperative complications (excluding mortality), which are variably grouped in published analyses using ACS NSQIP data. This hinders comparison between studies of this widely used quality improvement dataset. METHODS: Factor analysis was used to develop a series of complication clusters, which were then analyzed to identify a parsimonious, clinically meaningful grouping, using 2,275,240 surgical cases in the ACS NSQIP Participant Use File (PUF), 2005 to 2012. The main outcome measures are reproducible, data-driven, clinically meaningful clusters of complications derived from factor solutions. RESULTS: Factor analysis solutions for 5 to 9 latent factors were examined for their percent of total variance, parsimony, and clinical interpretability. Applying the first 2 of these criteria, we identified the 7-factor solution, which included clusters of pulmonary, infectious, wound disruption, cardiac/transfusion, venous thromboembolic, renal, and neurological complications, as the best solution for parsimony and clinical meaningfulness. Applying the last (clinical interpretability), we combined the wound disruption with the infectious clusters resulting in 6 clusters for future clinical applications. CONCLUSIONS: Factor analysis of ACS NSQIP postoperative complication data provides 6 clinically meaningful complication clusters in lieu of 18 postoperative morbidities, which will facilitate comparisons and clinical implementation of studies of postoperative morbidities.