Introduction
Early complications after elective esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction are associated with increased morbidity and mortality.
1‐
5 Recognition of patients at risk for complications before presentation of full-blown symptoms could lead to early diagnosis and treatment which may improve outcome. However, the early recognition of complications by clinical characteristics and parameters in individual patients remains difficult, except perhaps for pulmonary complications.
2,
3,
6 Esophagectomy in itself induces a strong inflammatory response, and the value of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria fever, leukocytosis, tachypnea, and tachycardia for the early diagnosis of complications is limited.
6‐
8 On the other hand, inflammatory biomarkers like C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) might be useful in the early diagnosis of not yet clinically symptomatic post-operative complications. Previous studies reported an association between elevated CRP levels and (infectious) complications, sepsis, and mortality after esophagectomy.
8‐
12 However, CRP levels did not discriminate between surgical and infectious complications, requiring different therapeutic management strategies.
6,
8‐
10,
12,
13 PCT is an allegedly more specific marker of severe infection and complications after surgery than CRP,
14‐
16 but the literature is inconclusive in this respect.
17,
18 So far, only five studies reported on PCT levels post-esophagectomy,
1,
11,
13,
19,
20 of which only two focused on post-operative infectious complications.
11,
13 The latter studies suggested that PCT is useful for the diagnosis of infectious complications and discriminating sepsis from SIRS post-esophagectomy. The discriminating ability of PCT for complication subtypes is unknown, however.
We hypothesized that CRP is a sensitive but non-specific marker of developing complications after esophagectomy, while PCT is a more specific marker of developing severe post-operative infections. We thus compared the use of CRP and PCT for early diagnosis of surgical and infectious complications.
Patients and Methods
This prospective observational study, approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Erasmus Medical Centre (MEC-2010-199), was conducted between September 2011 and December 2012. Forty-five consecutive adult patients were included after giving written informed consent prior to surgery. We did not perform a power analysis for this proof of principle study. Because of competing studies and activities, this proof of principle study was limited in time, and therefore, we could include only 45 patients in the time interval indicated. Esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction was performed by the transthoracic or transhiatal approach.
21 The gastric tube reconstruction was performed by handsewn end-to-end or semimechanical end-to-side anastomosis.
22 After admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), patients were taken care of by board-certified intensivists unaware of biomarker results.
Results
Twenty-eight patients (62 %) suffered from a post-operative complication, of whom 5 had a surgical complication, 14 an infectious complication, and 9 combined surgical/infectious complications (Table
2). The manifestation of post-operative complications was on day 3 or later in all patients, and in 92 % of cases, complications presented on day 4 or later. Patients developing combined surgical/infectious complications had more complications than patients in the other complication groups (3 vs. 1 complication). Table
3 shows baseline characteristics for patients developing complications and without complications. The number of female patients was higher in the infectious and combined surgical/infectious than that in the surgical complication group. Almost all patients suffered from SIRS at some point during the first 10 days post-operatively. Patients developing infectious complications had received antibiotics less often than the other patient groups. Patients suffering surgical or combined complications had a longer hospital stay than patients with an uncomplicated recovery (
P = 0.03 and
P = 0.02, respectively). All patients survived until 30 days post-operatively. The preoperative World Health Organization (WHO) performance score and pulmonary function tests were not predictive of post-operative complications. To avoid major overlap, we do not separately report the baseline characteristics of patients with versus without anastomotic leak.
Table 2
Complications up to 10 days post-esophagectomy
Anastomotic leak | Pneumonia, wound infection | Anastomotic leak, chyle leak, wound infection |
Anastomotic leak | Pneumonia, wound infection | Anastomotic leak, pneumonia, wound infection |
Pleural effusion, chyle leak | Pneumonia | Anastomotic leak, pneumonia |
Chyle leak | Pneumonia | Anastomotic leak, abscess, wound infection |
Chyle leak | Pneumonia | Anastomotic leak, pleural effusion, abscess, wound infection |
| Pneumonia | Anastomotic leak, pneumonia |
| Pneumonia | Anastomotic leak, wound infection, pneumonia, empyema |
| Pneumonia | Anastomotic leak, pneumonia, empyema |
| Pneumonia | Chyle leak, abscess, pneumonia |
| Wound infection | |
| Wound infection | |
| Wound infection | |
| Urinary tract infection | |
| Urinary tract infection | |
Table 3
Baseline characteristics
Sex (M) | 16 (94) | 23 (82) | 0.39 | 2 (40) | 12 (86) | 9 (100) | 0.009 |
Age (years) | 62 (14) | 63 (17) | 0.52 | 60 (15) | 65 (14) | 63 (20) | 0.89 |
BMI (cm2/kg) | 27.8 (4.7) | 23.8 (5.0) | 0.05 | 22.7 (8.3) | 25.3 (6.1) | 23.5 (2.9) | 0.12 |
WHO performance score |
0 | 7 (41) | 14 (50) | 0.57 | 7 (50) | 2 (40) | 5 (56) | 0.57 |
1 | 10 (59) | 14 (50) | 7 (50) | 3 (60) | 4 (44) |
Preoperative pulmonary function |
FEV1 (% predicted) | 113 (27) | 98 (21) | 0.04 | 96 (27) | 100 (1) | 94 (22) | 0.19 |
VC (% predicted) | 112 (28) | 111 (16) | 1.00 | 115 (17) | 108 (2) | 106 (22) | 0.58 |
ASA class |
I | 2 (12) | 10 (11) | 0.86 | 2 (40) | 0 | 1 (11) | 0.08 |
II | 13 (77) | 20 (71) | 1 (20) | 11 (79) | 8 (89) |
III | 2 (12) | 5 (18) | 2 (40) | 3 (21) | 0 |
P-POSSUM score | 35 (10) | 34 (5) | 0.50 | 34 (3) | 33 (8) | 35 (3) | 0.70 |
Cell type |
Squamous cell carcinoma | 2 (12) | 9 (32) | 0.28 | 4 (29) | 2 (40) | 3 (33) | 0.85 |
Adenocarcinoma | 13 (77) | 18 (64) | 6 (64) | 3 (60) | 6 (67) |
Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma | 1 (6) | 1 (4) | 1 (6) | 0 | 0 |
Miscellaneous | 1 (6) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Clinical stage |
T |
1 | 1 (6) | 0 | 0.10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.26 |
2 | 2 (12) | 5 (18) | 2 (14) | 1 (20) | 2 (22) |
3 | 11 (65) | 19 (68) | 12 (86) | 3 (60) | 4 (44) |
4 | 3 (20) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Unknown | 0 | 4 (14) | 0 | 1 (20) | 3 (33) |
N |
0 | 5 (29) | 9 (32) | 0.67 | 5 (36) | 2 (40) | 2 (22) | 0.53 |
1 | 5 (29) | 9 (32) | 3 (21) | 2 (40) | 4 (44) |
2 | 6 (35) | 9 (32) | 6 (43) | 1 (20) | 2 (22) |
3 | 1 (6) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Unknown | 0 | 1 (4) | 0 | 0 | 1(11) |
M |
0 | 17 (100) | 26 (93) | 0.52 | 14 (100) | 5 (100) | 7 (78) | na |
Unknown | 0 | 2 (7) | 0 | 0 | 2 (22) |
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy | 14 (82) | 26 (93) | 0.35 | 5 (100) | 13 (93) | 8 (89) | 0.66 |
Surgical approach |
TH | 6 (35) | 10 (36) | 1.00 | 2 (40) | 5 (36) | 3 (33) | 1.00 |
TT | 11 (65) | 18 (64) | 3 (60) | 9 (64) | 6 (67) |
Open procedure | 16 (94) | 25 (59) | 1.00 | 12 (86) | 5 (100) | 8 (89) | 0.74 |
Laparoscopic procedure | 1 (6) | 3 (11) | 2 (14) | 0 | 1 (11) |
Hand sewn end-to-end | 7 (41) | 17 (61) | 0.23 | 8 (57) | 3 (60) | 6 (67) | 0.61 |
Semimechanical side-to-end | 10 (59) | 11 (39) | 6 (43) | 2 (40) | 3 (33) |
Operation duration (min) | 414 (186) | 383 (136) | 0.40 | 383 (171) | 382 (140) | 410 (156) | 0.79 |
Blood loss (mL) | 1000 (800) | 675 (869) | 0.33 | 600 (765) | 725 (794) | 700 (960) | 0.33 |
APACHE II score | 8 (5) | 8 (3) | 0.47 | 8 (2) | 7 (6) | 9 (4) | 0.82 |
SOFA score |
Day 0 | 7 (2) | 6 (4) | 0.36 | 4 (3) | 5 (3) | 5(2) | 1.00 |
Day 1 | 5 (3) | 4 (5) | 0.18 | 5 (2) | 4 (6) | 4 (2) | 0.47 |
Day 2 | 3 (1) | 3 (4) | 0.92 | 3 (4) | 2 (5) | 4 (2) | 0.97 |
Day 3 | 1 (2) | 1 (4) | 0.15 | 3 (2) | 2 (3) | 3 (5) | 0.26 |
SIRS (days 0–10) | 13 (77) | 27 (96) | 0.06 | 5 (100) | 14 (100) | 8 (89) | 0.17 |
Sepsis (days 0–10) | 0 | 17 (64) | < 0.001 | 0 | 11 (79) | 6 (67) | < 0.001 |
Septic shock (days 0–10) | 0 | 6 (21) | 0.07 | 0 | 3 (21) | 3 (33) | 0.06 |
Prophylactic antibiotics i.o. | 17 (100) | 22 (100) | na | 5 (100) | 14 (100) | 9 (100) | na |
Antibiotics received (days 0–10) | 4 (24) | 20 (71) | 0.002 | 10 (71) | 3 (66) | 7 (78) | 0.02 |
Microbiology |
Enterobacteriaceae
| 0 | 7 (25) | 0.03 | 0 | 5 (36) | 2 (22) | 0.03 |
Pseudomonaceae
| 0 | 5 (18) | 0.14 | 0 | 3 (21) | 2 (22) | 0.15 |
Staphylococcaceae
| 0 | 1 (4) | 1.00 | 0 | 1 (7) | 0 | 0.50 |
Streptococcaceae
| 0 | 1 (4) | 1.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 (11) | 0.25 |
Miscellaneous | 0 | 6 (21) | 0.07 | 0 | 3 (21) | 3 (33) | 0.06 |
Vasopressor need (days 0–10) | 7 (40) | 12 (43) | 0.91 | 2 (40) | 5 (36) | 5 (56) | 0.82 |
ICU days | 3 (1) | 3 (1) | 0.64 | 3 (2) | 4 (2) | 3 (5) | 0.43 |
In hospital days | 12 (6) | 16 (10) | 0.007 | 20 (12) | 15 (6) | 19 (12) | 0.02 |
30-day mortality | 0 | 0 | na | 0 | 0 | 0 | na |
Discussion
This relatively small study suggests that elevated CRP levels are a sensitive marker of complications developing post-esophagectomy, whereas elevated PCT levels may specifically indicate the development of more severe combined surgical/infectious complications, mainly associated with anastomotic leakage, within 3 to 10 days post-esophagectomy.
Even though all patients had low ASA classification, P-POSSUM, and APACHE II scores, 62 % had early post-operative complications. There were no fatalities within 30 days post-operatively. The preoperative risk assessment scores were comparable between groups and thus unsuitable for indicating development of a complicated post-operative clinical course. Although the complication rate appears relatively high, the rate and type are in line with the literature.
2‐
9,
11‐
13,
22,
27,
28 Up till now, there are no uniformly accepted guidelines for reporting of post-operative complications, and a recent systematic review has shown a wide range in definitions hampering interpretation of study results.
4 The difficulty in uniform, mutually exclusive complication categories makes interpretation and comparison of studies difficult. We grouped complications since they represent different conditions and associated severities, whereas the group was too small to attempt to discriminate between individual complications. Patients who developed combined surgical/infectious complications had more complications simultaneously than patients in the other complication groups. Furthermore, their hospital stay was longer than of patients with infectious complications or without complications.
This is the first study trying to discriminate among early post-operative complication types by using CRP and PCT. All complications presented on day 3 or later, and in 92 % of cases, complications presented on day 4 or later. We may argue that since the cutoff values of day 2 and 3 biomarker levels precede the clinical symptoms and diagnosis of complication, they are predictive in time. The elevation of CRP levels in patients without complications is also comparable to that reported before.
6,
8,
9,
11‐
13 Studies reported high PCT levels, as in our study, after esophagectomy or other extensive gastrointestinal surgeries irrespective of complications,
1,
15,
19 and high PCT levels, albeit not more elevated than CRP, in major anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.
16,
18 Based on our observations and those of others,
6,
7,
9,
12,
15,
17 one may thus hypothesize that both CRP and PCT increase following a surgical host response, but that PCT follows a more severe manifestation of this response, particularly when associated with surgical/infectious complications. Indeed, we could not discriminate infectious complications from surgical complications by use of PCT or CRP, but PCT rather than CRP was able to identify patients at risk for more severe combined complications after esophagectomy.
In detail, CRP levels on days 2 and 3 were diagnostic for any complication presenting between days 3 and 10, independent of preoperative risk assessment score and SIRS criteria. The calculated sensitivity and specificity are similar to those reported in some previous studies,
9,
10 but in slight contrast to others who found a diagnostic value of CRP no sooner than on post-operative day 4
8,
11,
12 or no diagnostic value at all for anastomotic leakage or infectious complications.
6,
13 In our study, neither CRP levels nor fractional increases could differentiate between complication groups, limiting the use of CRP levels for early recognition of complication subtypes. The low specificity and modest positive predictive value calculated from the AUROC suggest that the use of an elevated CRP alone as an indicator of developing complications post-esophagectomy may lead to antibiotic overtreatment, amongst others, if considered specific for infection.
Plasma PCT levels have been studied and compared with CRP in patients after major surgery and trauma, but the results are inconclusive.
14‐
18,
20 So far, one study on post-esophagectomy showed a diagnostic value of PCT for development of sepsis
11 and another one for infectious complications.
13 We found an early diagnostic value of day 3 PCT levels for combined surgical/infectious complications presenting between days 3 and 10 independently from preoperative risk assessment scores, but not of infectious complications alone. PCT was the only marker of help in the early diagnosis of more severe complications and the earliest one to recognize anastomotic leakage, the most common combined surgical/infectious complication. Even though the AUROC of day 3 CRP was statistically significant for combined complications, the marker level had little positive predictive value. The positive predictive value of PCT levels is higher, and PCT is therefore preferred over CRP for diagnosis of combined complications. As a result, elevated PCT levels at the cutoff levels presented could guide additional diagnostics and start of empirical antibiotics before full-blown presentation of complications post-esophagectomy.
The leukocyte counts peaked around the upper limit of normal on day 2 in agreement with some studies.
6,
8,
10,
11 This relatively low leukocyte peak count could be explained by neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the majority of patients. Some investigators found a moderately elevated leukocyte count on days 2 to 5 to predict anastomotic leak and infectious complications.
8,
10,
11 The leukocyte count in our study did not discriminate between surgical, infectious, or combined complications and is therefore not useful for this purpose, as in other studies.
6,
13 We included this SIRS criterion for reasons of comparison with CRP and PCT.
The limitations of this proof of principle study include its relatively small and heterogeneous sample size. Furthermore, little is known about the effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on biomarker release and kinetics. However, almost all patients in our study received such treatment and predictive values of biomarkers were maintained. There is no difference in effect on post-operative CRP and PCT values reported between laparoscopic and open surgery or between the transhiatal and transthoracic approaches, respectively.
1,
29