• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

理解美国食管癌手术后的抢救失败。

Understanding Failure to Rescue After Esophagectomy in the United States.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

出版信息

Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Mar;109(3):865-871. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.09.044. Epub 2019 Nov 9.

DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.09.044
PMID:31706867
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Data on failure to rescue (FTR) after esophagectomy are sparse. We sought to better understand the patient factors associated with FTR and to assess whether FTR is associated with hospital volume.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing esophagectomy between 2010 and 2014 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Nationwide Readmission Database. We defined FTR as mortality after a major complication. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify patient factors and hospital-volume associations with FTR.

RESULTS

Of 26,820 patients undergoing an esophagectomy, 7130 (26.6%) experienced a major complication. Of those, 1321 did not survive the index hospitalization (FTR rate, 18.5%). Risk factors for FTR included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.06; P < .001), congestive heart failure (aOR, 2.07; P < .001), bleeding disorders (aOR, 2.9; P < .001), liver disease (aOR, 2.37; P = .001), and renal failure (aOR, 2.37; P = .002). At the hospital level there was wide variation in FTR rates across hospital volume quintiles, with 21.2% of patients suffering a complication not surviving to discharge at low-volume hospitals compared with 13.4% at high-volume hospitals (P < .001). At low-volume hospitals the highest FTR rates were acute renal failure (35.3%), postoperative hemorrhage (31.9%), and pulmonary failure (28.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 5 esophagectomy patients suffering a complication at low-volume hospitals do not survive to discharge. Several patient factors are associated with death after a major complication. Strategies to improve the recognition and management of complications in at-risk patients may be essential to improve outcomes at low-volume hospitals.

摘要

背景

关于食管癌手术后未能抢救(FTR)的数据很少。我们试图更好地了解与 FTR 相关的患者因素,并评估 FTR 是否与医院容量有关。

方法

我们从美国医疗保健研究与质量国家再入院数据库中确定了 2010 年至 2014 年间所有接受食管癌手术的患者。我们将 FTR 定义为主要并发症后的死亡率。使用多因素逻辑回归分析确定与 FTR 相关的患者因素和医院容量。

结果

在 26820 例接受食管癌手术的患者中,7130 例(26.6%)发生了主要并发症。其中,1321 例患者在指数住院期间未存活(FTR 发生率为 18.5%)。FTR 的危险因素包括年龄增加(调整后的优势比[aOR],1.06;P<0.001)、充血性心力衰竭(aOR,2.07;P<0.001)、出血性疾病(aOR,2.9;P<0.001)、肝脏疾病(aOR,2.37;P=0.001)和肾衰竭(aOR,2.37;P=0.002)。在医院层面,医院容量五分位法中 FTR 率差异很大,低容量医院发生并发症的患者中有 21.2%未存活到出院,而高容量医院这一比例为 13.4%(P<0.001)。在低容量医院,FTR 率最高的是急性肾衰竭(35.3%)、术后出血(31.9%)和肺衰竭(28.1%)。

结论

在低容量医院接受食管癌手术的患者中,每 5 例发生并发症的患者中就有 1 例未存活到出院。一些患者因素与主要并发症后的死亡有关。改善高危患者对并发症的识别和管理的策略可能对提高低容量医院的疗效至关重要。

相似文献

1
Understanding Failure to Rescue After Esophagectomy in the United States.理解美国食管癌手术后的抢救失败。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Mar;109(3):865-871. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.09.044. Epub 2019 Nov 9.
2
Predictors of Failure to Rescue After Esophagectomy.食管癌手术后抢救失败的预测因素。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Mar;105(3):871-878. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.10.022. Epub 2018 Feb 2.
3
Complications and Failure to Rescue After Inpatient Noncardiac Surgery in the Veterans Affairs Health System.退伍军人事务部医疗体系中住院非心脏手术后的并发症和抢救失败。
JAMA Surg. 2016 Dec 1;151(12):1157-1165. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2920.
4
Effects of hospital safety-net burden and hospital volume on failure to rescue after open abdominal aortic surgery.医院安全网负担和医院手术量对开放性腹主动脉手术后抢救失败的影响。
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Aug;66(2):404-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.12.146. Epub 2017 Apr 19.
5
Failure to rescue as a source of variation in hospital mortality after rectal surgery: The Italian experience.未能抢救是直肠手术后医院死亡率差异的一个来源:意大利的经验。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jul;45(7):1219-1224. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.03.006. Epub 2019 Mar 16.
6
Impact of hospital volume on patient safety indicators and failure to rescue following open aortic aneurysm repair.医院容量对开放式腹主动脉瘤修复术后患者安全指标和抢救失败的影响。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Apr;71(4):1135-1146.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.194. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
7
Hospital variation in mortality after emergent bowel resections: The role of failure-to-rescue.急症肠切除术后死亡率的医院差异:未抢救成功的作用。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 May;84(5):702-710. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001827.
8
Hospital volume and failure to rescue after vestibular schwannoma resection.前庭神经鞘瘤切除术后的医院容量和抢救失败。
Laryngoscope. 2020 May;130(5):1287-1293. doi: 10.1002/lary.28174. Epub 2019 Jul 3.
9
Failure to rescue after major abdominal surgery: The role of hospital safety net burden.重大腹部手术后救援失败:医院安全网负担的作用。
Am J Surg. 2020 Oct;220(4):1023-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.03.014. Epub 2020 Mar 12.
10
Center case volume is associated with Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined failure to rescue in cardiac surgery.中心病例量与心胸外科协会定义的心脏手术抢救失败有关。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Jul;168(1):165-174.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.05.009. Epub 2023 May 20.

引用本文的文献

1
The implementation of eras in Belgian esophageal surgery centers.比利时食管外科中心的加速康复外科(ERAS)实施情况。
Updates Surg. 2025 Apr;77(2):411-418. doi: 10.1007/s13304-025-02063-x. Epub 2025 Feb 8.
2
Incidence and treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy in German acute care hospitals: a retrospective cohort study.德国急症医院食管癌切除术后吻合口漏的发生率及治疗:一项回顾性队列研究
Int J Surg. 2025 Apr 1;111(4):2953-2961. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000002274.
3
Effect of Preoperative Body Composition on Postoperative Anastomotic Leakage in Oncological Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy-A Retrospective Cohort Study.
术前身体组成对肿瘤学Ivor Lewis食管癌切除术后吻合口漏的影响——一项回顾性队列研究
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Dec 18;16(24):4217. doi: 10.3390/cancers16244217.
4
Esophagectomy Trends and Postoperative Outcomes at Private Equity-Acquired Health Centers.私募股权收购的健康中心的食管癌切除术趋势及术后结果
JAMA Surg. 2025 Mar 1;160(3):296-302. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5920.
5
Tranexamic Acid for reduction of intra- and postoperative TRansfusion requirements in elective Abdominal surgery (TATRA): study protocol for an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized superiority trial with two parallel groups.氨甲环酸减少择期腹部手术中(TATRA)围术期和术后输血需求:一项以研究者发起、多中心、双盲、安慰剂对照、随机优效性试验的研究方案,采用两平行组。
Trials. 2024 Oct 19;25(1):695. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08541-8.
6
Cancer survival analysis on population-based cancer registry data in Zhejiang Province, China (2018-2019).基于中国浙江省人群癌症登记数据的癌症生存分析(2018 - 2019年)
J Natl Cancer Cent. 2023 Dec 28;4(1):54-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jncc.2023.12.003. eCollection 2024 Mar.
7
Association of operative time and approach on postoperative complications for esophagectomy.手术时间和手术入路与食管癌术后并发症的关系。
Surgery. 2024 Oct;176(4):1106-1114. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.06.021. Epub 2024 Jul 18.
8
A real-world study was conducted to develop a nomogram that predicts the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in patients with esophageal cancer following esophagectomy.一项真实世界的研究旨在开发一个列线图,以预测食管癌患者接受食管切除术后吻合口漏的发生。
Aging (Albany NY). 2024 May 1;16(9):7733-7751. doi: 10.18632/aging.205780.
9
Long-Term Impact of Severe Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.食管癌切除术后严重术后并发症的长期影响:个体患者数据荟萃分析
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Apr 11;16(8):1468. doi: 10.3390/cancers16081468.
10
Impact of hospital volume on failure to rescue for complications requiring reoperation after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre propensity score-matched cohort study.择期结直肠手术后因需要再次手术的并发症而导致抢救失败的医院容量影响:多中心倾向评分匹配队列研究。
BJS Open. 2024 Mar 1;8(2). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae025.