TY - JOUR
T1 - Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy
T2 - Unravelling differences in failure to rescue
AU - the TENTACLE – Esophagus collaborative group
AU - Study collaborators
AU - Ubels, Sander
AU - Matthée, Eric
AU - Verstegen, Moniek
AU - Klarenbeek, Bastiaan
AU - Bouwense, Stefan
AU - van Berge Henegouwen, Mark I.
AU - Daams, Freek
AU - Dekker, Jan Willem T.
AU - van Det, Marc J.
AU - van Esser, Stijn
AU - Griffiths, Ewen A.
AU - Haveman, Jan Willem
AU - Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard
AU - Siersema, Peter D.
AU - Wijnhoven, Bas
AU - Hannink, Gerjon
AU - van Workum, Frans
AU - Rosman, Camiel
AU - Slootmans, Cettela A.M.
AU - Ultee, Gijs
AU - Gisbertz, Suzanne S.
AU - Eshuis, Wietse J.
AU - Kalff, Marianne C.
AU - Feenstra, Minke L.
AU - van der Peet, Donald L.
AU - Stam, Wessel T.
AU - Van Etten, Boudewijn
AU - Poelmann, Floris
AU - Vuurberg, Nienke
AU - Willem van den Berg, Jan
AU - Martijnse, Ingrid S.
AU - Matthijsen, Robert M.
AU - Luyer, Misha
AU - Curvers, Wout
AU - Nieuwenhuijzen, Tom
AU - Taselaar, Annick E.
AU - Kouwenhoven, Ewout A.
AU - Lubbers, Merel
AU - Sosef, Meindert
AU - Lecot, Frederik
AU - Geraedts, Tessa C.M.
AU - van den Wildenberg, Frits
AU - Kelder, Wendy
AU - Baas, Peter C.
AU - de Haas, Job W.A.
AU - Hartgrink, Henk H.
AU - Bahadoer, Renu R.
AU - Räsänen, Jari V.
AU - Kauppi, Juha
AU - Söderström, Henna
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/5
Y1 - 2023/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Anastomotic leak
KW - Complications
KW - Esophagectomy
KW - Failure to rescue
KW - Practice variation
KW - 3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149737025&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010
DO - 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 36732207
AN - SCOPUS:85149737025
SN - 0748-7983
VL - 49
SP - 974
EP - 982
JO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
JF - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
IS - 5
ER -