Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2019

Open Access 10.06.2019 | Thoracic Oncology

Cardiorespiratory Comorbidity and Postoperative Complications following Esophagectomy: a European Multicenter Cohort Study

verfasst von: F. Klevebro, MD, PhD, J. A. Elliott, MD, PhD, A. Slaman, MD, PhD, B. D. Vermeulen, MD, PhD, S. Kamiya, MD, PhD, C. Rosman, MD, PhD, S. S. Gisbertz, MD, PhD, P. R. Boshier, MD, PhD, J. V. Reynolds, MD, PhD, I. Rouvelas, MD, PhD, G. B. Hanna, MD, PhD, M. I. van Berge Henegouwen, MD, PhD, S. R. Markar, MD, PhD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 9/2019

Abstract

Background

The impact of cardiorespiratory comorbidity on operative outcomes after esophagectomy remains controversial. This study investigated the effect of cardiorespiratory comorbidity on postoperative complications for patients treated for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Patients and Methods

A European multicenter cohort study from five high-volume esophageal cancer centers including patients treated between 2010 and 2017 was conducted. The effect of cardiorespiratory comorbidity and respiratory function upon postoperative outcomes was assessed.

Results

In total 1590 patients from five centers were included; 274 (17.2%) had respiratory comorbidity, and 468 (29.4%) had cardiac comorbidity. Respiratory comorbidity was associated with increased risk of overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, pneumonia, increased Clavien–Dindo score, and critical care and hospital length of stay. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, respiratory comorbidity was associated with increased risk of anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–3.04], pneumonia (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10–2.47), and any pulmonary complication (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.04–2.22), an effect which was not observed following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone. Cardiac comorbidity was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and pulmonary complications, respiratory failure, and Clavien–Dindo score ≥ IIIa. Among all patients, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio > 70% was associated with reduced risk of overall postoperative complications, cardiovascular complications, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary complications, and pneumonia.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that cardiorespiratory comorbidity and impaired pulmonary function are associated with increased risk of postoperative complications after esophagectomy performed in high-volume European centers. Given the observed interaction with neoadjuvant approach, these data indicate a potentially modifiable index of perioperative risk.
Hinweise

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Surgical resection remains the mainstay of curative treatment for esophageal cancer.13 Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly the standard of care for patients with locally advanced disease, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the CROSS randomized controlled trial (RCT) achieving 5-year survival of 47%, establishing a modern benchmark for treatment with curative intent.4 Moreover, the recent publication of the NeoFLOT data, and presentation of the FLOT 4 trial data, including patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction, highlighted real progress in the curative management of this cancer with pre- and postoperative chemotherapy.5,6
Notwithstanding this increased cure rate, esophagectomy remains an exemplar of complex major surgery associated with significant risk of major morbidity, and substantial impact on health-related quality of life.7,8 In this context, a number of strategies have been developed in recent years to optimize the perioperative care of patients and to minimize morbidity. These include enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols,9,10 and centralization of esophageal cancer surgery to high-volume centers.11 In addition, the advent of total or hybrid minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy represents a further advance, with a reduction in postoperative pulmonary infections evidenced in recent randomized trials.12,13
An area of controversy is whether the benefit of improved oncologic outcomes from a combination approach including neoadjuvant therapies is offset by an increase in operative complications, in particular pulmonary morbidity.11,1417 In addition, whether preexisting respiratory and cardiac comorbidity impacts on complications for each multimodality treatment approach is unclear. Impaired pulmonary function, measured with spirometry, is a known risk factor for postoperative complications.18 Accordingly, the primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of cardiac and respiratory comorbidity on postoperative complications and mortality. The secondary objective is to evaluate the role of preoperative pulmonary function tests in identifying patients at risk of postoperative complications and mortality, and to evaluate the effects of cardiorespiratory comorbidity according to treatment approach, either surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Patients and Methods

Datasets

Data were collected from 2010 to 2017 from five high-volume European esophageal cancer centers: (1) Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (n = 400), (2) Imperial College London, UK (n = 137), (3) Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (n = 575), (4) Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (n = 79), and (5) The National Esophageal and Gastric Center, St. James’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (n = 399).

Inclusion Criteria

All patients operated with curative intent for esophageal or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) tumors (Siewert type I and II) were included. Patients receiving surgery alone (S), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCS), and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRS) were studied. Patients receiving total minimally invasive, hybrid minimally invasive, and open esophagectomy were included.

Exclusion Criteria

Patients found to have unresectable disease at time of surgery, those with Siewert type III EGJ tumors, or receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy followed by salvage esophagectomy were excluded.

Clinical Staging and Follow-Up

Patients with histologically confirmed cancer of the esophagus or EGJ were staged using endoscopy and positron emission tomography (PET)–computed tomography of the thorax and abdomen, which was the standard practice at all centers. Endoscopic ultrasound was used in the staging of EGJ tumors at all centers. All centers had a standardized postoperative pathway following esophagectomy, in keeping with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles, though there was some minor heterogeneity between centers.
Follow-up was similar between centers, with mortality identified by linking institutional datasets with national databases to ensure absolute accuracy of all-cause mortality.

Outcomes Including Definition of Complications

The outcomes evaluated included 30-day and in-hospital complications, which were defined as: postoperative respiratory failure requiring critical care admission, postoperative atrial fibrillation requiring treatment, according to postoperative Clavien–Dindo severity classification, anastomotic leakage or conduit necrosis (endoscopically or radiographically verified), reoperation for any cause, pneumonia defined by the individual investigator when at least one of the following criteria were fulfilled: new and persistent or progressive and persistent radiographic infiltrate, and at least one of: fever (> 38.0 °C or > 100.4 °F), leukopenia (≤ 4000 WBC/mm3), or leukocytosis (> 12,000 WBC/mm3), for adults > 70 years old, altered mental status with no other recognized cause, and at least two of the following: new onset of purulent sputum or change in character of sputum, or increased respiratory secretions, or increased suctioning requirements, new-onset or worsening cough, or dyspnea, or tachypnea, rales or bronchial breath sounds, worsening gas exchange [e.g., O2 desaturations (e.g., PaO2/FiO2 < 240)], increased oxygen requirements, or increased ventilator demand.19 In-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day postoperative all-cause mortality were compiled with complete follow-up. Length of intensive care unit and hospital stay were measured with complete follow-up.

Exposure

The exposure of the study was cardiac or respiratory disease recorded at baseline. Respiratory disease was defined as chronic pulmonary disease with impaired lung function, including mild, moderate, or severe chronic obstructive lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, severe asthma, or other chronic pulmonary disease assessed by the surgeon at the initial consultation for esophageal cancer. Cardiac disease was defined as chronic heart disease with impaired cardiac function, including previous myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or other chronic cardiac disease assessed by the physician assessing the patient for esophagectomy. Classification of comorbidities was performed by the researcher based on the available clinical data at each site (authors F. Klevebro, J. A. Elliott, A. Slaman, B. D. Vermeulen, P. R. Boshier, and S. R. Markar).

Covariates

Sex, age, weight, smoking status (smoker/nonsmoker/ex-smoker), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and comorbidities including hypertension and diabetes were collected. Preoperative results on spirometry tests [FVC, FEV1, Tiffeneau–Pinelli index (FEV1/FVC), bicycle or treadmill ergometry results (measured in W/kg), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by echocardiogram (%)] were compiled when available. Patients were stratified by FEV1/FVC ratio > 70%20 and LVEF > 55%.21 Operative data including surgical technique were gathered.

Statistical Analysis

The following confounders with categorizations were used in the adjusted model for the main analysis: age (continuous, years), gender [categorical: male (reference)/female], histology [categorical: adenocarcinoma (reference)/squamous cell carcinoma], clinical T-stage (categorical: 0–4), clinical N-stage (categorical: 0–3), surgical technique [transthoracic esophagectomy according to Ivor Lewis (reference), three-field esophagectomy according to McKeown, or transhiatal esophagectomy], and surgical approach [open (reference), hybrid minimally invasive, or total minimally invasive esophagectomy].
For categorical outcomes, logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All above-mentioned regression models were adjusted for predefined confounders.
Approval was granted from the regional research ethics committee of each participating center.

Results

Comparison of Baseline Patient Demographics and Pretreatment Tumor Stage

Preoperative Patient Demographics

Significant underlying differences in patient age, sex, and ASA score were observed when comparing patients with and without cardiorespiratory comorbidity (Table 1).
Table 1
Unadjusted comparison of patient and treatment factors stratified by preoperative cardiorespiratory comorbidity status
N (%)
No cardiorespiratory comorbidity (N = 982)
Respiratory comorbidity (N = 274)
Cardiac comorbidity (N = 468)
Cardiorespiratory comorbidity (N = 608)
P value*
Age (median, IQR), years
63 (56–70)
65 (60–71)
67 (62–72)
67 (61–71)
< 0.001
Sex
    
0.001
 Male
739 (75.3)
219 (79.9)
392 (83.8)
500 (82.2)
 
 Female
243 (24.8)
55 (20.1)
76 (16.2)
108 (17.8)
 
ASA score
    
< 0.001
 1
7 (0.7)
26 (9.5)
24 (5.1)
46 (7.6)
 
 2
345 (35.1)
160 (58.4)
270 (57.7)
356 (58.6)
 
 3
515 (52.4)
87 (31.8)
171 (36.5)
203 (33.4)
 
 4
113 (11.5)
1 (0.4)
3 (0.6)
3 (0.5)
 
ECOG score (n = 1264)
    
0.094
 0
582 (70.7)
168 (74.0)
227 (69.4)
319 (72.3)
 
 1
229 (27.8)
51 (22.5)
88 (26.9)
108 (24.5)
 
 2
12 (1.5)
7 (3.1)
11 (3.4)
13 (3.0)
 
 3
0 (0)
1 (0.4)
1 (0.3)
1 (0.2)
 
Smoking (n = 850)
    
0.086
 Never
158 (34.4)
65 (28.4)
76 (27.2)
107 (27.4)
 
 Former
211 (46.0)
104 (45.4)
157 (56.3)
200 (51.2)
 
 Currently
90 (19.6)
60 (26.2)
46 (16.5)
84 (21.5)
 
 FVC L, median (IQR)
4.1 (3.2–4.7)
3.7 (3.1–4.4)
3.8 (3.4–4.3)
3.7 (3.2–4.3)
0.008
 FEV1 L, median (IQR)
2.9 (2.4–3.5)
2.4 (1.9–3.1)
2.8 (2.1–3.1)
2.6 (2.1–3.1)
0.020
 FEV1/FVC median % (IQR) (n = 850)
83.3 (74.3–97.0)
73.3 (63.2–82.6)
88.0 (75.9–100)
84 (71.7–98.0)
0.747
 Bicycle test (W) (n = 34)
No observations
129 (114–156)
131 (118–157)
131 (117–160)
 
 Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) (n = 234)
59.5 (55.0–63.0)
59 (55.0–60.0)
55 (50.0–60.0)
56.5 (53.0–60.0)
0.056
cT
    
0.127
 1
111 (11.3)
44 (16.1)
62 (13.3)
81 (13.3)
 
 2
173 (17.6)
42 (15.3)
75 (16.0)
103 (16.9)
 
 3
614 (62.5)
168 (61.3)
308 (65.8)
392 (64.5)
 
 4
48 (4.9)
12 (4.4)
10 (2.1)
18 (3.0)
 
 X
36 (3.7)
8 (2.9)
13 (2.8)
14 (2.3)
 
cN
    
0.057
 0
438 (44.6)
125 (45.6)
182 (38.9)
244 (40.1)
 
 1
394 (40.1)
121 (44.2)
224 (47.9)
286 (47.0)
 
 2
133 (13.5)
22 (8.0)
57 (12.2)
69 (11.4)
 
 3
17 (1.7)
6 (2.2)
5 (1.1)
9 (1.5)
 
Tumor type
    
0.125
 Adenocarcinoma
747 (76.1)
209 (76.3)
367 (78.2)
475 (78.1)
 
 SCC
207 (21.1)
62 (22.6)
94 (20.1)
125 (20.6)
 
 Other
28 (2.9)
3 (1.1)
7 (1.5)
8 (1.3)
 
Tumor location
    
< 0.001
 Upper/middle
142 (14.5)
35 (12.8)
48 (10.3)
66 (10.9)
 
 Distal
326 (33.2)
88 (32.1)
253 (54.1)
297 (48.9)
 
 EGJ
514 (52.3)
151 (55.1)
167 (35.7)
245 (40.3)
 
Surgical approach
    
0.005
 Open
527 (53.7)
194 (70.8)
223 (47.7)
338 (55.6)
 
 HMIO
36 (3.7)
5 (1.8)
5 (1.1)
6 (1.0)
 
 TMIO
419 (42.7)
75 (27.4)
240 (51.3)
264 (43.4)
 
Surgical technique
    
< 0.001
 Ivor Lewis
564 (57.5)
139 (51.1)
228 (48.8)
293 (48.4)
 
 McKeown
305 (31.1)
62 (22.8)
140 (30.0)
179 (29.5)
 
 Transhiatal
112 (11.4)
71 (26.1)
99 (21.2)
134 (22.1)
 
Neoadjuvant treatment
    
0.095
 None
232 (23.6)
81 (29.6)
105 (22.4)
137 (22.5)
 
 Chemotherapy
182 (18.5)
54 (19.7)
54 (11.5)
90 (14.8)
 
 Chemoradiotherapy
568 (57.8)
139 (50.7)
309 (66.0)
381 (62.7)
 
IQR interquartile range, HMIO hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy, TMIO totally minimally invasive esophagectomy, SCC squamous cell carcinoma
*Comparing patients with and without preoperative cardiopulmonary disease

Pretreatment Tumor Characteristics and Surgical Approach

There were no statistically significant differences in tumor stage, tumor type, or use of neoadjuvant treatment between the groups, however proximal tumor location was less common in the cardiorespiratory comorbidity group (Table 1). Surgical technique did show variation between the groups, with the cardiorespiratory comorbidity group having a higher proportion of transhiatal resections (22.1% vs. 11.4%, P < 0.001, Table 1).

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes

Respiratory Comorbidity and Postoperative Outcomes

Preoperative respiratory comorbidity was associated with an increase in postoperative complications (70.8% vs. 64.4%), length of intensive care unit stay (median 1 day vs. 0 days), and length of hospital stay (median 18 days vs. 14 days). Postoperative Clavien–Dindo complication scores were significantly increased among patients with baseline respiratory comorbidity (P = 0.037, Table 2). Multivariable adjusted analyses showed an increased risk of anastomotic leak (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.11–2.41) and pneumonia (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04–1.85, Table 3) among patients with baseline respiratory comorbidity.
Table 2
Comparison of postoperative outcomes stratified by preoperative cardiorespiratory comorbidity status
N (%)
No cardiorespiratory comorbidity (N = 982)
Respiratory comorbidity (N = 274)
Cardiac comorbidity (N = 468)
Cardiorespiratory comorbidity (N = 608)
P value*
In-hospital mortality
28 (2.9)
12 (4.4)
24 (5.1)**
26 (4.3)
0.128
Postoperative complication
632 (64.4)
194 (70.8)**
305 (65.2)
408 (67.1)
0.263
Length of intensive care unit stay, median days (IQR)
0 (0–2)
1 (0–5)**
1 (0–5)
1 (0–5)**
< 0.001
Length of hospital stay, median days (IQR)
14 (10–22)
18 (12–30)**
15 (9–27)
15 (10–27)
0.057
Reoperation
48 (7.1)
20 (10.7)
47 (11.8)**
59 (11.4)**
0.010
Pneumonia
255 (26.0)
98 (35.8)**
136 (29.1)
180 (29.6)
0.114
Anastomotic leak
111 (11.3)
42 (15.3)
73 (15.6)**
86 (14.1)
0.095
Conduit necrosis
6 (0.9)
2 (2.7)
19 (4.7)**
19 (3.7)**
0.001
Cardiovascular complication
174 (17.7)
57 (20.9)
129 (27.6)**
153 (25.2)**
< 0.001
Atrial fibrillation
109 (11.1)
32 (11.7)
49 (10.5)
67 (11.0)
0.961
Respiratory failure
95 (9.7)
41 (15.0)**
66 (14.1)**
81 (13.3)**
0.024
Pulmonary complication
343 (34.9)
122 (44.5)**
200 (42.7)**
254 (41.8)**
0.006
Clavien–Dindo score
P = 0.037**
P < 0.001**
 
P < 0.001
Grade I
216 (28.0)
64 (26.7)
75 (26.9)
105 (22.8)
 
Grade II
231 (29.9)
68 (28.3)
76 (22.2)
114 (24.7)
 
Grade IIIa
143 (18.5)
27 (11.3)
46 (13.5)
64 (13.9)
 
Grade IIIb
56 (7.3)
22 (9.2)
19 (5.6)
30 (6.5)
 
Grade IVa
93 (12.1)
45 (18.8)
84 (24.6)
100 (21.7)
 
Grade IVb
25 (3.2)
13 (5.4)
26 (7.6)
32 (6.9)
 
Grade V
8 (1.0)
1 (0.42)
16 (4.7)
16 (3.5)
 
Clavien–Dindo score, median (IQR)
II (I–IIIa)
II (I–IIIb)
IIIa (II–IVa)
IIIa (II–IVa)
< 0.001
*Comparing patients with and without preoperative cardiopulmonary disease
**P < 0.05 comparing patients with and without preoperative cardiopulmonary disease
Table 3
Multivariable adjusted analyses of the association between preoperative cardiorespiratory comorbidity and pulmonary function with postoperative complications and Clavien–Dindo scores
Odds ratio (95% CI)a
In-hospital mortality
Postoperative complication
Anastomotic leak
Cardiovascular complication
Atrial fibrillation
Pulmonary complication
Pneumonia
Respiratory failure
Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ IIIa
Respiratory comorbidityb
1.36 (0.69–2.67)
1.21 (0.91–1.63)
1.64 (1.11–2.41)
0.88 (0.63–1.23)
0.74 (0.48–1.13)
1.26 (0.96–1.66)
1.39 (1.04–1.85)
1.43 (0.97–2.09)
0.95 (0.71–1.27)
Cardiac comorbidityc
1.54 (0.88–2.72)
0.95 (0.75–1.21)
1.25 (0.90–1.72)
1.63 (1.25–2.13)
0.88 (0.60–1.29)
1.44 (1.14–1.82)
1.19 (0.92–1.53)
1.49 (1.06–2.09)
1.73 (1.34–2.25)
aAdjusted for age (continuous), sex (male or female), cT stage (0,1,2,3,4), cN stage (0,1,2,3), tumor histology (adenocarcinoma, SCC, other), surgical approach (open, HMIO, TMIO), and surgical technique (Ivor Lewis, McKeown, transhiatal)
bComparing patients with and without preoperative respiratory disease
cComparing patients with and without preoperative cardiac disease

Cardiac Comorbidity

Patients with preoperative cardiac comorbidity had significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality (5.1% vs. 2.7%), anastomotic leak (15.6 vs. 11.3%), conduit necrosis (4.7% vs. 0.9%), cardiovascular complications (27.6% vs. 17.7%), respiratory failure (14.1% vs. 9.7%), reoperation for any cause (11.8% vs. 7.1%), and any pulmonary complication (42.7% vs. 34.9%). Postoperative Clavien–Dindo complication scores were also increased with cardiac comorbidity (P < 0.001, Table 2). Multivariable adjusted analyses showed an increased risk of cardiovascular complications (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.25–2.13), pulmonary complications (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.14–1.82), respiratory failure (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.06–2.09), and Clavien–Dindo score ≥ IIIa (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.34–2.25, Table 3) among patients with preoperative cardiac comorbidity.

Cardiorespiratory Comorbidity among Postoperative Complications According to Neoadjuvant Protocol

In a multivariable adjusted analysis, respiratory comorbidity was associated with increased risk of anastomotic leak (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.11–3.04), pneumonia (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10–2.47), and any pulmonary complication (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.04–2.22) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy but not after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone (Table 4).
Table 4
Multivariable analyses to evaluate the effect of cardiac and respiratory comorbidity on postoperative outcomes stratified by neoadjuvant treatment
Odds ratio (95% CI)a
In-hospital mortality
Postoperative complication
Anastomotic leak
Cardiovascular complication
Atrial fibrillation OR (95% CI)
Pulmonary complication
Pneumonia
Respiratory failure
Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ IIIa
Surgery alone
Respiratory comorbidity
1.84 (0.60–5.95)
0.84 (0.48–1.45)
1.45 (0.70–2.99)
0.74 (0.39–1.40)
0.74 (0.35–1.56)
1.00 (0.59–1.67)
1.25 (0.72–2.16)
0.83 (0.39–1.79)
0.95 (0.56–1.63)
Cardiac comorbidity
0.95 (0.30–2.97)
1.00 (0.60–1.69)
0.89 (0.45–1.79)
1.75 (1.01–3.04)
1.07 (0.55–2.10)
1.69 (1.05–2.71)
1.41 (0.85–2.35)
1.53 (0.79–2.95)
1.80 (1.07–3.04)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Respiratory comorbidity
2.03 (0.29–14.40)
1.60 (0.73–3.37)
1.46 (0.43–4.94)
0.90 (0.42–1.90)
0.84 (0.39–1.84)
0.96 (0.51–1.81)
0.91 (0.48–1.74)
1.87 (0.79–4–43)
0.90 (0.47–1.75)
Cardiac comorbidity
12.62 (1.30–117.80)
1.49 (0.70–3.15)
1.51 (0.44–5.10)
2.00 (1.01–3.96)
1.55 (0.76–3.18)
1.57 (0.83–2.98)
1.62 (0.85–3.08)
2.35 (0.98–5–65)
1.96 (0.99–3.88)
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
Respiratory comorbidity
1.04 (0.38–2.82)
1.28 (0.85–1.90)
1.83 (1.11–3.04)
0.97 (0.61–1.55)
0.62 (0.29–1.32)
1.52 (1.04–2.22)
1.65 (1.10–2.47)
1.60 (0.94–2.74)
0.91 (0.60–1.37)
Cardiac comorbidity
1.56 (0.75–3.27)
0.92 (0.68–1.23)
1.34 (0.90–2.00)
1.48 (1.04–2.10)
0.53 (0.27–1.03)
1.34 (0.99–1.81)
1.06 (0.75–1.49)
1.41 (0.89–2.22)
1.73 (1.23–2.44)
aAdjusted for age (continuous), sex (male or female), cT stage (0,1,2,3,4), cN stage (0,1,2,3), tumor histology (adenocarcinoma, SCC, other), surgical approach (open, HMIO, TMIO), and surgical technique (Ivor Lewis, McKeown, transhiatal)
Cardiac comorbidity was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular complications, pulmonary complications, and Clavien–Dindo score ≥ IIIa regardless of neoadjuvant treatment. In the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, cardiac comorbidity was associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 12.62, 95% CI 1.30–117.80, Table 4).

Preoperative Respiratory and Cardiac Investigations and Postoperative Outcomes

Of 1590 patients, 608 (38.2%) had a cardiorespiratory comorbidity, of whom 407 (66.9%) had documented preoperative pulmonary function testing and 106 (17.4%) had a preoperative echocardiogram. Ergometry results were only available for 34 (5.6%) patients and were not included in the analyses. Unadjusted analyses showed that FEV1/FVC ratio > 70% was associated with reduced overall postoperative complications, cardiovascular complications, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary complications, and pneumonia. Adjusted analyses showed that FEV1/FVC ratio > 70% was associated with reduced risk of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37–0.89) and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28–0.75, Table 5). LVEF > 55% was associated with decreased risk of anastomotic leak (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12–0.95), but was otherwise unrelated to postoperative outcomes.
Table 5
Univariable and multivariable analyses to evaluate the effect of preoperative respiratory function on postoperative outcomes
Odds ratio (95% CI)
In-hospital mortality
Postoperative complication
Anastomotic leak
Cardiovascular complication
Atrial fibrillation
Pulmonary complication
Pneumonia
Respiratory failure
Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ IIIa
All patients unadjusted
FEV1/FVC ratio
         
≤ 70.0% (ref)
> 70.0% LVEF
0.91 (0.30–2.75)
0.44 (0.29–0.66)
1.28 (0.69–2.38)
0.57 (0.39–0.84)
0.22 (0.14–0.34)
0.61(0.43–0.86)
0.48 (0.33–0.70)
0.59 (0.35–1.01)
1.41 (0.95–2.08)
≤ 55.0% (ref)
> 55.0%
0.96 (0.21–4.39)
0.58 (0.31–1.09)
0.33 (0.12–0.91)
0.98 (0.56–1.72)
1.04 (0.59–1.85)
0.95 (0.56–1.59)
0.91 (0.53–1.56)
0.54 (0.24–1.20)
0.90 (0.50–1.62)
All patients adjusted a
FEV1/FVC ratio
         
≤ 70.0% (ref)
> 70.0% LVEF
1.13 (0.34–3.73)
0.57 (0.37–0.89)
0.79 (0.40–1.56)
0.73 (0.48–1.11)
0.46 (0.28–0.75)
0.76 (0.52–1.11)
0.72 (0.48–1.07)
0.76 (0.43–1.34)
1.24 (0.82–1.89)
≤ 55.0% (ref)
> 55.0%
0.74 (0.15–3.71)
0.55 (0.28–1.07)
0.34 (0.12–0.95)
1.04 (0.57–1.89)
1.11 (0.61–2.03)
0.97 (0.57–1.65)
0.91 (0.52–1.60)
0.56 (0.24–1.28)
0.94 (0.51–1.72)
aAdjusted for age (continuous), sex (male or female), cT stage (0,1,2,3,4), cN stage (0,1,2,3), tumor histology (adenocarcinoma, SCC, other), surgical approach (open, HMIO, TMIO), and surgical technique (Ivor Lewis, McKeown, transhiatal)
FEV1/FVC ratio N = 849, LVEF N = 234

Discussion

This large multicenter cohort study from high-volume European academic centers highlights several important points. First, cardiac or respiratory comorbidity substantially increased the risk and severity of postoperative complications, among patients deemed fit ab initio for surgery. Second, impaired pulmonary function based on spirometry reliably predicted pulmonary and cardiovascular complications, atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, and overall postoperative complications. Third, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was associated with increased risk of anastomotic leak and pulmonary complications among patients with respiratory comorbidity, while neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone was not.
Although risk assessment as part of modern management and ERAS programs for esophageal surgery has become increasingly standardized, accurate prediction of risk remains a significant clinical challenge.11,17 Age alone has not been associated with increased postoperative risk in most studies.22,23 Higher ASA score and decreased performance status are however established risk factors, and this was confirmed in the present study (data not shown).11 Preoperative assessment using spirometry, or bicycle or treadmill ergometry is commonly used to evaluate the patient’s fitness to undergo esophagectomy.18,24 Interestingly, however, even among academic centers, approximately only two-thirds of patients with preoperative cardiac or respiratory disease underwent such evaluation in this time period. For those measures, FEV1/FVC ratio > 70% was independently associated with a decreased risk of overall postoperative complications, cardiovascular complications, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary complications, and pneumonia. It seems prudent that all patients undergoing treatment with curative intent for esophageal cancer should undergo pulmonary physiology studies, ideally before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) applies analysis of breath-by-breath expired gas data to evaluate cardiorespiratory capacity. This test might provide a more accurate and useful estimate of cardiorespiratory function and risks associated with esophageal cancer treatment.25,26 The 6-min walk test is another test of cardiorespiratory capacity and physical function, which have been shown to predict perioperative risk in thoracic surgery.27,28 The role of these tests in esophageal cancer treatment should be evaluated in prospective studies and in trials of prehabilitation.
Moreover, based on the present data, studies targeting preoperative optimization through prehabilitation programs, including exercise interventions and smoking cessation, to improve pulmonary function, have considerable therapeutic rationale. A randomized trial that assessed the effect of preoperative inspiratory muscle training showed improved inspiratory muscle strength but no difference in lung function parameters or pulmonary complications.29 A recent randomized controlled trial showed that prehabilitation with an exercise program and nutritional support significantly increased patients’ results on the 6-min walk test.30 Preoperative optimization with exercise, nutritional support, and the interaction with cardiorespiratory comorbidity represent a highly pertinent future research area.
In this study, cardiac comorbidity was associated with increased in-hospital mortality after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and esophagectomy. New-onset atrial fibrillation may be the most common specific complication after esophagectomy, affecting approximately 20% of patients.31 Preoperative treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and platins is known to cause cardiac sensitization.32 It is interesting that this was not seen in the NCRS group, a fact that might be explained by the differences in the chemotherapy regimens which are used concomitant with radiotherapy. Furthermore, cytotoxic agents may impair myocellular proliferation by disrupting the mammalian target of rapamycin kinase pathway,33 while cisplatin also negatively impacts muscle function through a number of mechanisms including impaired Akt phosphorylation, leading to sustained activation of the degradative proteasome and autophagy systems, and altered nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-kB) signaling.34,35 Together these mechanisms may contribute to myocardial dysfunction among patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy.24,32 There was an increased risk for anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, and pneumonia for patients with respiratory comorbidity after NCRS but not after NCS. This could be an effect of the added radiotherapy, which has been shown in previous studies to be associated with increased risk for radiation pneumonitis, reduced physical endurance, pulmonary diffusion capacity, and heart function, and increased risk for severe postoperative complications after esophagectomy compared with NCS.14,17,3642 Modern neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for esophageal cancer appear to result in specific reductions in pulmonary diffusion capacity, particularly among older adults and those with a history of smoking or preexisting lung disease, which may limit such patients’ ability to tolerate pulmonary morbidity, increasing the risk of postoperative respiratory failure.42 Detailed analysis of postoperative outcomes is embedded in ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing NCRS with NCS for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma,43,44 and these secondary outcome measures will be of critical importance, particularly if there is oncologic equivalence.
The limitations of this study include the retrospective design and the difficulties in defining and measuring postoperative outcomes, however it must be noted that coding of complications was standardized for this study in accordance with international consensus recommendations.45 The included patients have been evaluated according to predefined variables by a devoted researcher at each participating center to increase the internal validity of the study. Pretreatment cardiac function tests were not available in the majority of patients, and cardiorespiratory comorbidity was assessed clinically. It is possible that cardiorespiratory comorbidity status may have been misclassified in some patients. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were however available in 67% of the patients. This could lead to understatement of the positive associations in the study, and prevents stratified analyses by type and function of the cardiorespiratory comorbidities. The small number of patients receiving preoperative cardiac investigations prevented robust investigation of the link between objective measurements of cardiac function and postoperative outcome. Furthermore, diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was often not available, which prevented meaningful analyses of the association with postoperative complications which has been demonstrated in previous research.46 Strengths of the study include the standardized classification of complications, the large sample size, and the multicenter design conferring external validity to the study within high-volume European centers.
In conclusion, this study shows that cardiorespiratory comorbidity is a clear risk factor for postoperative complications after esophagectomy. Impaired preoperative lung function is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications, particularly following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Careful clinical assessment, with thorough investigation of cardiorespiratory function, is required to facilitate treatment planning for patients considered for multimodal therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, et al. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet. 2013; 381(9864):400–12.CrossRefPubMed Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, et al. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet. 2013; 381(9864):400–12.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Sundelof M, Ye W, Dickman PW, et al. Improved survival in both histologic types of oesophageal cancer in Sweden. Int J Cancer. 2002; 99(5):751–4.CrossRefPubMed Sundelof M, Ye W, Dickman PW, et al. Improved survival in both histologic types of oesophageal cancer in Sweden. Int J Cancer. 2002; 99(5):751–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Rouvelas I, Zeng W, Lindblad M, et al. Survival after surgery for oesophageal cancer: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6(11):864–70.CrossRefPubMed Rouvelas I, Zeng W, Lindblad M, et al. Survival after surgery for oesophageal cancer: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6(11):864–70.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(22):2074–84.CrossRefPubMed van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(22):2074–84.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Batran SE, Hofheinz RD, Pauligk C, et al. Histopathological regression after neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4-AIO): results from the phase 2 part of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(12):1697–1708.CrossRefPubMed Al-Batran SE, Hofheinz RD, Pauligk C, et al. Histopathological regression after neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4-AIO): results from the phase 2 part of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(12):1697–1708.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2019; 393(10184):1948–1957.CrossRefPubMed Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2019; 393(10184):1948–1957.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Schieman C, Wigle DA, Deschamps C, et al. Patterns of operative mortality following esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2012; 25(7):645–51.CrossRefPubMed Schieman C, Wigle DA, Deschamps C, et al. Patterns of operative mortality following esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2012; 25(7):645–51.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Paul S, Altorki N. Outcomes in the management of esophageal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2014; 110(5):599–610.CrossRefPubMed Paul S, Altorki N. Outcomes in the management of esophageal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2014; 110(5):599–610.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang L, Zhu C, Ma X, et al. Impact of enhanced recovery program on patients with esophageal cancer in comparison with traditional care. Support Care Cancer. 2017; 25(2):381–9.CrossRefPubMed Wang L, Zhu C, Ma X, et al. Impact of enhanced recovery program on patients with esophageal cancer in comparison with traditional care. Support Care Cancer. 2017; 25(2):381–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Gemmill EH, Humes DJ, Catton JA. Systematic review of enhanced recovery after gastro-oesophageal cancer surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015; 97(3):173–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gemmill EH, Humes DJ, Catton JA. Systematic review of enhanced recovery after gastro-oesophageal cancer surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015; 97(3):173–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Markar S, Gronnier C, Duhamel A, et al. Pattern of postoperative mortality after esophageal cancer resection according to center volume: results from a large European multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22(8):2615–23.CrossRefPubMed Markar S, Gronnier C, Duhamel A, et al. Pattern of postoperative mortality after esophageal cancer resection according to center volume: results from a large European multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22(8):2615–23.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012; 379(9829):1887–92.CrossRefPubMed Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012; 379(9829):1887–92.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, et al. Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(2):152–62.CrossRefPubMed Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, et al. Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(2):152–62.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Avendano CE, Flume PA, Silvestri GA, et al. Pulmonary complications after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73(3):922–6.CrossRefPubMed Avendano CE, Flume PA, Silvestri GA, et al. Pulmonary complications after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73(3):922–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Klevebro F, Johnsen G, Johnson E, et al. Morbidity and mortality after surgery for cancer of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction: a randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs. neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(7):920–6. Klevebro F, Johnsen G, Johnson E, et al. Morbidity and mortality after surgery for cancer of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction: a randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs. neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(7):920–6.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Stahl M, Walz MK, Stuschke M, et al. Phase III comparison of preoperative chemotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(6):851–6.CrossRefPubMed Stahl M, Walz MK, Stuschke M, et al. Phase III comparison of preoperative chemotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(6):851–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kumagai K, Rouvelas I, Tsai JA, et al. Meta-analysis of postoperative morbidity and perioperative mortality in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancers. Br J Surg. 2014; 101(4):321–38.CrossRefPubMed Kumagai K, Rouvelas I, Tsai JA, et al. Meta-analysis of postoperative morbidity and perioperative mortality in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancers. Br J Surg. 2014; 101(4):321–38.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferguson MK, Durkin AE. Preoperative prediction of the risk of pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002; 123(4):661–9.CrossRefPubMed Ferguson MK, Durkin AE. Preoperative prediction of the risk of pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002; 123(4):661–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2019; 269(2):291–298.CrossRefPubMed Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2019; 269(2):291–298.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Mohamed Hoesein FA, Zanen P, Lammers JW. Lower limit of normal or FEV1/FVC < 0.70 in diagnosing COPD: an evidence-based review. Respir Med. 2011; 105(6):907–15. Mohamed Hoesein FA, Zanen P, Lammers JW. Lower limit of normal or FEV1/FVC < 0.70 in diagnosing COPD: an evidence-based review. Respir Med. 2011; 105(6):907–15.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Fonarow GC, Hsu JJ. Left ventricular ejection fraction: what is “normal”? JACC Heart Fail. 2016; 4(6):511–3.CrossRefPubMed Fonarow GC, Hsu JJ. Left ventricular ejection fraction: what is “normal”? JACC Heart Fail. 2016; 4(6):511–3.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferguson MK, Martin TR, Reeder LB, et al. Mortality after esophagectomy: risk factor analysis. World J Surg. 1997; 21(6):599–603; discussion 603–4. Ferguson MK, Martin TR, Reeder LB, et al. Mortality after esophagectomy: risk factor analysis. World J Surg. 1997; 21(6):599–603; discussion 603–4.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Law S, Wong KH, Kwok KF, et al. Predictive factors for postoperative pulmonary complications and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(5):791–800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Law S, Wong KH, Kwok KF, et al. Predictive factors for postoperative pulmonary complications and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(5):791–800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat von Dobeln GA, Nilsson M, Adell G, et al. Pulmonary function and cardiac stress test after multimodality treatment of esophageal cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016; 6(3):e53–9.CrossRef von Dobeln GA, Nilsson M, Adell G, et al. Pulmonary function and cardiac stress test after multimodality treatment of esophageal cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016; 6(3):e53–9.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Levett DZH, Jack S, Swart M, et al. Perioperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET): consensus clinical guidelines on indications, organization, conduct, and physiological interpretation. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(3):484–500.CrossRefPubMed Levett DZH, Jack S, Swart M, et al. Perioperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET): consensus clinical guidelines on indications, organization, conduct, and physiological interpretation. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(3):484–500.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Richardson K, Levett DZH, Jack S, et al. Fit for surgery? Perspectives on preoperative exercise testing and training. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 119(suppl_1):i34–43. Richardson K, Levett DZH, Jack S, et al. Fit for surgery? Perspectives on preoperative exercise testing and training. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 119(suppl_1):i34–43.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Enright PL. The six-minute walk test. Respir Care. 2003; 48(8):783–5.PubMed Enright PL. The six-minute walk test. Respir Care. 2003; 48(8):783–5.PubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Holden DA, Rice TW, Stelmach K, et al. Exercise testing, 6-min walk, and stair climb in the evaluation of patients at high risk for pulmonary resection. Chest. 1992; 102(6):1774–9.CrossRefPubMed Holden DA, Rice TW, Stelmach K, et al. Exercise testing, 6-min walk, and stair climb in the evaluation of patients at high risk for pulmonary resection. Chest. 1992; 102(6):1774–9.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Valkenet K, Trappenburg JCA, Ruurda JP, et al. Multicentre randomized clinical trial of inspiratory muscle training versus usual care before surgery for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018; 105(5):502–11.CrossRefPubMed Valkenet K, Trappenburg JCA, Ruurda JP, et al. Multicentre randomized clinical trial of inspiratory muscle training versus usual care before surgery for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018; 105(5):502–11.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Mc Cormack O, Zaborowski A, King S, et al. New-onset atrial fibrillation post-surgery for esophageal and junctional cancer: incidence, management, and impact on short- and long-term outcomes. Ann Surg. 2014; 260(5):772–8; discussion 778. Mc Cormack O, Zaborowski A, King S, et al. New-onset atrial fibrillation post-surgery for esophageal and junctional cancer: incidence, management, and impact on short- and long-term outcomes. Ann Surg. 2014; 260(5):772–8; discussion 778.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsibiribi P, Descotes J, Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Cardiotoxicity of 5-fluorouracil in 1350 patients with no prior history of heart disease. Bull Cancer. 2006; 93(3):E27–30.PubMed Tsibiribi P, Descotes J, Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Cardiotoxicity of 5-fluorouracil in 1350 patients with no prior history of heart disease. Bull Cancer. 2006; 93(3):E27–30.PubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Fearon K, Arends J, Baracos V. Understanding the mechanisms and treatment options in cancer cachexia. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013; 10(2):90–9.CrossRefPubMed Fearon K, Arends J, Baracos V. Understanding the mechanisms and treatment options in cancer cachexia. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013; 10(2):90–9.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Fanzani A, Zanola A, Rovetta F, et al. Cisplatin triggers atrophy of skeletal C2C12 myotubes via impairment of Akt signalling pathway and subsequent increment activity of proteasome and autophagy systems. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2011; 250(3):312–21.CrossRefPubMed Fanzani A, Zanola A, Rovetta F, et al. Cisplatin triggers atrophy of skeletal C2C12 myotubes via impairment of Akt signalling pathway and subsequent increment activity of proteasome and autophagy systems. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2011; 250(3):312–21.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Damrauer SM, Acharyya S, Baldwin AS, Couch ME, Guttridge DC Chemotherapy-induced muscle wasting: association with NF-κB and cancer cachexia. Basic Appl Myology. 2008; 18(5):139–48. Damrauer SM, Acharyya S, Baldwin AS, Couch ME, Guttridge DC Chemotherapy-induced muscle wasting: association with NF-κB and cancer cachexia. Basic Appl Myology. 2008; 18(5):139–48.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Lund M, Alexandersson von Dobeln G, Nilsson M, et al. Effects on heart function of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in patients with cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction—a prospective cohort pilot study within a randomized clinical trial. Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10(1):16. Lund M, Alexandersson von Dobeln G, Nilsson M, et al. Effects on heart function of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in patients with cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction—a prospective cohort pilot study within a randomized clinical trial. Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10(1):16.
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Liedman B, Johnsson E, Merke C, et al. Preoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy may increase the risk in patients undergoing thoracoabdominal esophageal resections. Dig Surg. 2001; 18(3):169–75.CrossRefPubMed Liedman B, Johnsson E, Merke C, et al. Preoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy may increase the risk in patients undergoing thoracoabdominal esophageal resections. Dig Surg. 2001; 18(3):169–75.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Asakura H, Hashimoto T, Zenda S, et al. Analysis of dose-volume histogram parameters for radiation pneumonitis after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2010; 95(2):240–4.CrossRefPubMed Asakura H, Hashimoto T, Zenda S, et al. Analysis of dose-volume histogram parameters for radiation pneumonitis after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2010; 95(2):240–4.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Kwa SL, Lebesque JV, Theuws JC, et al. Radiation pneumonitis as a function of mean lung dose: an analysis of pooled data of 540 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 42(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMed Kwa SL, Lebesque JV, Theuws JC, et al. Radiation pneumonitis as a function of mean lung dose: an analysis of pooled data of 540 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 42(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang S, Liao Z, Wei X, et al. Association between systemic chemotherapy before chemoradiation and increased risk of treatment-related pneumonitis in esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2008; 3(3):277–82.CrossRefPubMed Wang S, Liao Z, Wei X, et al. Association between systemic chemotherapy before chemoradiation and increased risk of treatment-related pneumonitis in esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2008; 3(3):277–82.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Reynolds JV, Ravi N, Hollywood D, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation may increase the risk of respiratory complications and sepsis after transthoracic esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 132(3):549–55.CrossRefPubMed Reynolds JV, Ravi N, Hollywood D, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation may increase the risk of respiratory complications and sepsis after transthoracic esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 132(3):549–55.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Elliott JA, Murphy CF, Doyle SL, et al. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on preoperative pulmonary physiology, postoperative respiratory complications and quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2019; in press. Elliott JA, Murphy CF, Doyle SL, et al. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on preoperative pulmonary physiology, postoperative respiratory complications and quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2019; in press.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoeppner J, Lordick F, Brunner T, et al. ESOPEC: prospective randomized controlled multicenter phase III trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT protocol) to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS protocol) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (NCT02509286). BMC Cancer. 2016; 16:503.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hoeppner J, Lordick F, Brunner T, et al. ESOPEC: prospective randomized controlled multicenter phase III trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT protocol) to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS protocol) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (NCT02509286). BMC Cancer. 2016; 16:503.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Reynolds JV, Preston SR, O’Neill B, et al. ICORG 10–14: NEOadjuvant trial in Adenocarcinoma of the oEsophagus and oesophagoGastric junction International Study (Neo-AEGIS). BMC Cancer. 2017; 17(1):401.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Reynolds JV, Preston SR, O’Neill B, et al. ICORG 10–14: NEOadjuvant trial in Adenocarcinoma of the oEsophagus and oesophagoGastric junction International Study (Neo-AEGIS). BMC Cancer. 2017; 17(1):401.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015; 262(2):286–94.CrossRefPubMed Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015; 262(2):286–94.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Cardiorespiratory Comorbidity and Postoperative Complications following Esophagectomy: a European Multicenter Cohort Study
verfasst von
F. Klevebro, MD, PhD
J. A. Elliott, MD, PhD
A. Slaman, MD, PhD
B. D. Vermeulen, MD, PhD
S. Kamiya, MD, PhD
C. Rosman, MD, PhD
S. S. Gisbertz, MD, PhD
P. R. Boshier, MD, PhD
J. V. Reynolds, MD, PhD
I. Rouvelas, MD, PhD
G. B. Hanna, MD, PhD
M. I. van Berge Henegouwen, MD, PhD
S. R. Markar, MD, PhD
Publikationsdatum
10.06.2019
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 9/2019
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07478-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2019

Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.