Performance of a consensus-based algorithm for diagnosing anastomotic leak after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

被引:3
|
作者
Lemmens, Jobbe [1 ]
Klarenbeek, Bastiaan [1 ]
Verstegen, Moniek [1 ]
van Workum, Frans [1 ,2 ]
Hannink, Gerjon [3 ]
Ubels, Sander [1 ]
Rosman, Camiel [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Canisius Wilhelmina Hosp, Dept Surg, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, Med Ctr, Dept Operating Rooms, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, POB 9101, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
algorithm; anastomotic leak; diagnosis; minimally invasive esophagectomy; postoperative complications; ESOPHAGOGASTRIC ANASTOMOSIS; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; COMPLICATIONS; ENDOSCOPY; TIME;
D O I
10.1093/dote/doad016
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common and severe complication after esophagectomy. This study aimed to assess the performance of a consensus-based algorithm for diagnosing AL after minimally invasive esophagectomy. This study used data of the ICAN trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing cervical and intrathoracic anastomosis, in which a predefined diagnostic algorithm was used to guide diagnosing AL. The algorithm identified patients suspected of AL based on clinical signs, blood C-reactive protein (cut-off value 200 mg/L), and/or drain amylase (cut-off value 200 IU/L). Suspicion of AL prompted evaluation with contrast swallow computed tomography and/or endoscopy to confirm AL. Primary outcome measure was algorithm performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), respectively. AL was defined according to the definition of the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. 245 patients were included, and 125 (51%) patients were suspected of AL. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 62% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 46-75), a specificity of 97% (95% CI: 89-100), and a PPV and NPV of 94% (95% CI: 79-99) and 77% (95% CI: 66-86), respectively, on initial assessment. Repeated assessment in 19 patients with persisting suspicion of AL despite negative or inconclusive initial assessment had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 77-100). The algorithm showed poor performance because the low sensitivity indicates the inability of the algorithm to confirm AL on initial assessment. Repeated assessment using the algorithm was needed to confirm remaining leaks.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Minimally invasive resection and mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomotic techniques in the management of esophageal cancer
    Luketich, JD
    Landreneau, RJ
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2004, 8 (08) : 927 - 929
  • [22] Do alterations in plasma albumin and prealbumin after minimally invasive esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma influence the incidence of cervical anastomotic leak?
    Ying-Jian Wang
    Xue-Hai Liu
    Long-Yong Mei
    Kun-Kun Li
    Yao-Guang Jiang
    Wei Guo
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2016, 30 : 3943 - 3949
  • [23] The Predictive Value of Coefficient of PCT x BG for Anastomotic Leak in Esophageal Carcinoma Patients With ARDS After Esophagectomy
    Li, Huan
    Wang, Daofeng
    Wei, Wenxiao
    Ouyang, Lamei
    Lou, Ning
    JOURNAL OF INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2019, 34 (07) : 572 - 577
  • [24] Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Can Zhou
    Gang Ma
    Xiao Li
    Juan Li
    Yu Yan
    Peijun Liu
    Jianjun He
    Yu Ren
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 13
  • [25] Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhou, Can
    Ma, Gang
    Li, Xiao
    Li, Juan
    Yan, Yu
    Liu, Peijun
    He, Jianjun
    Ren, Yu
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 13
  • [26] The effect of postoperative complications on survival of patients after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    Kun-Kun Li
    Yin-Jian Wang
    Xue-Hai Liu
    Qun-You Tan
    Yao-Guang Jiang
    Wei Guo
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2017, 31 : 3475 - 3482
  • [27] The effect of postoperative complications on survival of patients after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    Li, Kun-Kun
    Wang, Yin-Jian
    Liu, Xue-Hai
    Tan, Qun-You
    Jiang, Yao-Guang
    Guo, Wei
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (09): : 3475 - 3482
  • [28] Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer - results of surgical therapy
    Vrba, Radek
    Aujesky, Rene
    Vomackova, Katherine
    Bohanes, Tomas
    Stasek, Martin
    Neoral, Cestmir
    VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2015, 10 (02) : 189 - 196
  • [29] Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: less is more
    van der Sluis, Pieter Christiaan
    Grimminger, Peter Philipp
    van Hillegersberg, Richard
    Ruurda, Jelle Piet-Hein
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2019, 11 : S1935 - S1937
  • [30] Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    Eroglu, Atilla
    Daharli, Coskun
    Ulas, Ali Bilal
    Keskin, Hilmi
    Aydin, Yener
    TURK GOGUS KALP DAMAR CERRAHISI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2022, 30 (03): : 421 - 430