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
  • [31] Robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer
    van der Sluis, Pieter Christiaan
    van Hillegersberg, Richard
    BEST PRACTICE & RESEARCH CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 36-37 : 81 - 83
  • [32] A structured training program for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer-a Delphi consensus study in Europe
    Visser, E.
    van Rossum, P. S. N.
    van Veer, H.
    Al-Naimi, K.
    Chaudry, M. A.
    Cuesta, M. A.
    Gisbertz, S. S.
    Gutschow, C. A.
    Hoelscher, A. H.
    Luyer, M. D. P.
    Mariette, C.
    Moorthy, K.
    Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P.
    Nilsson, M.
    Rasanen, J. V.
    Schneider, P. M.
    Schroeder, W.
    Cheong, E.
    van Hillegersberg, R.
    DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2018, 31 (03)
  • [33] Could hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy improve the treatment results of esophageal cancer?
    Bjelovic, M.
    Babic, T.
    Spica, B.
    Gunjic, D.
    Veselinovic, M.
    Trajkovic, G.
    EJSO, 2016, 42 (08): : 1196 - 1201
  • [34] Comparison of Endoscopic Resection and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Patients With Early Esophageal Cancer
    Jin, Xi-Feng
    Gai, Wei
    Chai, Tong-Hai
    Li, Ling
    Guo, Jian-Qiang
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2017, 51 (03) : 223 - 227
  • [35] Recent advances in minimally invasive esophagectomy for squamous esophageal cancer
    Yip, Hon Chi
    Shirakawa, Yasuhiro
    Cheng, Ching-Yuan
    Huang, Chang-Lun
    Chiu, Philip Wai Yan
    ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 2020, 1482 (01) : 113 - 120
  • [36] Minimally invasive esophagectomy may contribute to long-term respiratory function after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    Kosumi, K.
    Yoshida, N.
    Okadome, K.
    Eto, T.
    Kuroda, D.
    Ohuchi, M.
    Kiyozumi, Y.
    Nakamura, K.
    Izumi, D.
    Tokunaga, R.
    Harada, K.
    Mima, K.
    Sawayama, H.
    Ishimoto, T.
    Iwatsuki, M.
    Baba, Y.
    Miyamoto, Y.
    Watanabe, M.
    Baba, H.
    DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2018, 31 (06)
  • [37] Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Is it truly less invasive?
    Oshikiri, Taro
    Takiguchi, Gosuke
    Miura, Susumu
    Takase, Nobuhisa
    Hasegawa, Hiroshi
    Yamamoto, Masashi
    Kanaji, Shingo
    Yamashita, Kimihiro
    Matsuda, Yoshiko
    Matsuda, Takeru
    Nakamura, Tetsu
    Suzuki, Satoshi
    Kakeji, Yoshihiro
    ANNALS OF GASTROENTEROLOGICAL SURGERY, 2019, 3 (02): : 138 - 145
  • [38] The Impact of EndoVAC in Addressing Post-Esophagectomy Anastomotic Leak in Esophageal Cancer Management
    Papadakos, Stavros P.
    Argyrou, Alexandra
    Katsaros, Ioannis
    Lekakis, Vasileios
    Mpouga, Georgia
    Vergadis, Chrysovalantis
    Fytili, Paraskevi
    Koutsoumpas, Andreas
    Schizas, Dimitrios
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (23)
  • [39] Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer
    Chowdappa, Ramachandra
    Dharanikota, Anvesh
    Arjunan, Ravi
    Althaf, Syed
    Premalata, Chennagiri S.
    Ranganath, Namrata
    SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2021, 10 (04) : 230 - 235
  • [40] Evaluation of Anastomotic Leak after Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Typical Time Point of Occurrence, Mode of Diagnosis, Value of Routine Radiocontrast Agent Studies and Therapeutic Options
    Struecker, Benjamin
    Andreou, Andreas
    Chopra, Sascha
    Heilmann, Ann-Christin
    Spenke, Johanna
    Denecke, Christian
    Sauer, Igor Maximilian
    Bahra, Marcus
    Pratschke, Johann
    Biebl, Matthias
    DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2018, 35 (05) : 419 - 426