Suppr超能文献

食管切除术后吻合口漏的实践差异:未能抢救的原因分析。

Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023 May;49(5):974-982. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010. Epub 2023 Jan 20.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Failure to rescue (FTR) is an important outcome measure after esophagectomy and reflects mortality after postoperative complications. Differences in FTR have been associated with hospital resection volume. However, insight into how centers manage complications and achieve their outcomes is lacking. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a main contributor to FTR. This study aimed to assess differences in FTR after AL between centers, and to identify factors that explain these differences.

METHODS

TENTACLE - Esophagus is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, which included 1509 patients with AL after esophagectomy. Differences in FTR were assessed between low-volume (<20 resections), middle-volume (20-60 resections) and high-volume centers (≥60 resections). Mediation analysis was performed using logistic regression, including possible mediators for FTR: case-mix, hospital resources, leak severity and treatment.

RESULTS

FTR after AL was 11.7%. After adjustment for confounders, FTR was lower in high-volume vs. low-volume (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2-0.8), but not versus middle-volume centers (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.5-1.0). After mediation analysis, differences in FTR were found to be explained by lower leak severity, lower secondary ICU readmission rate and higher availability of therapeutic modalities in high-volume centers. No statistically significant direct effect of hospital volume was found: high-volume vs. low-volume 0.86 (95%CI 0.4-1.7), high-volume vs. middle-volume OR 0.86 (95%CI 0.5-1.4).

CONCLUSION

Lower FTR in high-volume compared with low-volume centers was explained by lower leak severity, less secondary ICU readmissions and higher availability of therapeutic modalities. To reduce FTR after AL, future studies should investigate effective strategies to reduce leak severity and prevent secondary ICU readmission.

摘要

引言

术后抢救失败(FTR)是食管切除术后的一个重要结果衡量标准,反映了术后并发症后的死亡率。FTR 的差异与医院切除量有关。然而,缺乏对中心如何处理并发症和实现其结果的了解。吻合口漏(AL)是导致 FTR 的主要原因。本研究旨在评估不同中心 AL 后 FTR 的差异,并确定解释这些差异的因素。

方法

TENTACLE-食管是一项多中心回顾性队列研究,纳入了 1509 例食管切除术后 AL 患者。低容量(<20 例切除)、中容量(20-60 例切除)和高容量中心(≥60 例切除)之间评估了 FTR 的差异。使用逻辑回归进行中介分析,包括 FTR 的可能中介因素:病例组合、医院资源、漏液严重程度和治疗。

结果

AL 后 FTR 为 11.7%。在调整混杂因素后,与低容量中心相比,高容量中心的 FTR 较低(OR 0.44,95%CI 0.2-0.8),但与中容量中心相比无差异(OR 0.67,95%CI 0.5-1.0)。通过中介分析发现,FTR 的差异可归因于高容量中心较低的漏液严重程度、较低的二次 ICU 再入院率和较高的治疗方法的可获得性。未发现医院容量的直接效应有统计学意义:高容量与低容量中心相比为 0.86(95%CI 0.4-1.7),高容量与中容量中心相比为 0.86(95%CI 0.5-1.4)。

结论

与低容量中心相比,高容量中心的 FTR 较低,这可归因于较低的漏液严重程度、较少的二次 ICU 再入院和较高的治疗方法的可获得性。为了降低 AL 后的 FTR,未来的研究应调查减少漏液严重程度和预防二次 ICU 再入院的有效策略。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验