Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2615–2623 | Cite as

Pattern of Postoperative Mortality After Esophageal Cancer Resection According to Center Volume: Results from a Large European Multicenter Study

  • Sheraz Markar
  • Caroline Gronnier
  • Alain Duhamel
  • Jean-Marc Bigourdan
  • Bogdan Badic
  • Mael Chalret du Rieu
  • Jérémie H. Lefevre
  • Kathleen Turner
  • Guillaume Luc
  • Christophe Mariette
Thoracic Oncology

Abstract

Background

High center procedural volume has been shown to reduce postoperative mortality (POM); however, the cause of POM has been poorly studied previously. The aim of this study was to define the pattern of POM and major morbidity in relation to center procedural volume.

Methods

Data from 2,944 consecutive adult patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in 30 centers between 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively collected. Data between patients who suffered 30-day POM were compared with those who did not. Factors associated with POM were identified using binary logistic regression, with propensity matching to compare low- (LV) and high-volume (HV) centers.

Results

The 30-day and in-hospital POM rates were 5.0 and 7.3 %, respectively. Pulmonary complications were the most common, affecting 38.1 % of patients, followed by surgical site infection (15.5 %), cardiovascular complications (11.2 %), and anastomotic leak (10.2 %). Factors that were independently associated with 30-day POM included American Society of Anesthesiologists grade IV, LV center, anastomotic leak, pulmonary, cardiovascular and neurological complications, and R2 resection margin status. Surgical complications preceded POM in approximately 30 % of patients compared to medically-related causes in 68 %. Propensity-matched analysis demonstrated LV centers were significantly associated with increased 30-day POM, and POM secondary to anastomotic leak, and pulmonary- and cardiac-related causes.

Conclusions

The results of this large, multicenter study provide further evidence to support the centralization of esophagectomy to HV centers, with a lower rate of morbidity and better infrastructure to deal with complications following major surgery preventing further mortality.

Keywords

Esophageal Cancer Propensity Score Anastomotic Leak Surgical Site Infection Procedural Volume 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None.

Funding Sources

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Sauvanet A, Mariette C, Thomas P, et al. Mortality and morbidity after resection for adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: predictive factors. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:253–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reames BN, Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, et al. Hospital volume and operative mortality in the modern era. Ann Surg. 2014;260:244–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mariette C, Piessen G, Balon JM, et al. Surgery alone in the curative treatment of localised oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:869–876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Markar SR, Schmidt H, Kunz S, et al. Evolution of standardized clinical pathways: refining multidisciplinary care and process to improve outcomes of the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1238–1446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Markar SR, Low DE. Physiology, not chronology, dictates outcomes after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: outcomes in patients 80 years and older. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1020–1026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256:95–103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, et al. Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000–2011. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1055–1063.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2128–2137.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reames BN, Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, et al. Hospital volume and operative mortality in the modern era. Ann Surg. 2014;260:244–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Almoudaris AM, Mamidanna R, Bottle A, et al. Failure to rescue patients after reintervention in gastroesophageal cancer surgery in England. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:272–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Findlay JM, Gillies RS, Sgromo B, et al. Individual risk modeling for esophagectomy: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1532–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Gotoh M, et al. A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg. 2014;260:259–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamai Y, Hihara J, Taomoto J, et al. Effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. Epub 11 Mar 2014. doi: 10.1111/dote.12207.
  14. 14.
    Bosch DJ, Muijs CT, Mul VE, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative course after curative-intent transthoracic esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:605–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind Ch. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Wiley; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, et al. Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trials. The MIRO trial. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schieman C, Wigle DA, Deschamps C, et al. Patterns of operative morality following esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2012;25:645–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rutegard M, Lagergren P, Rouvelas I, et al. Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage and mortality after esophageal cancer resection: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munashinge A, Markar SR, Mamidanna R, et al. Is it time to centralize high-risk cancer care in the United States? Comparison of outcomes of esophagectomy between England and the United States. Ann Surg. Epub 27 Jun 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheraz Markar
    • 1
  • Caroline Gronnier
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Alain Duhamel
    • 5
    • 6
  • Jean-Marc Bigourdan
    • 7
  • Bogdan Badic
    • 8
  • Mael Chalret du Rieu
    • 9
  • Jérémie H. Lefevre
    • 10
  • Kathleen Turner
    • 11
  • Guillaume Luc
    • 12
  • Christophe Mariette
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Surgery and CancerImperial CollegeLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University Hospital Claude HuriezRegional University Hospital CenterLille CedexFrance
  3. 3.North of France UniversityLilleFrance
  4. 4.Inserm, UMR837, Team 5 ‘Mucins, Epithelial Differentiation and Carcinogenesis’JPARCLilleFrance
  5. 5.SIRIC OncoLilleLilleFrance
  6. 6.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity HospitalLilleFrance
  7. 7.Department of Digestive SurgeryCroix-Rousse University HospitalLyonFrance
  8. 8.Cavale Blanche University HospitalBrestFrance
  9. 9.Purpan University HospitalToulouseFrance
  10. 10.Saint Antoine University HospitalParisFrance
  11. 11.Pontchaillou University HospitalRennesFrance
  12. 12.Haut-Levêque University HospitalBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations