scholarly journals Stroke Volume Variation-Guided Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Did Not Significantly Reduce the Incidence of Early Postoperative Complications in Elderly Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Tang ◽  
Yuwei Qiu ◽  
Huijie Lu ◽  
Meiying Xu ◽  
Jingxiang Wu
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Stroke Volume ◽  
Stroke Volume Variation ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Early Postoperative Complications ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Volume Variation

Study Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether stroke volume variation (SVV)-guided goal-directed therapy (GDT) can improve postoperative outcomes in elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with conventional care.Design: A prospective, randomized, controlled study.Setting: A single tertiary care center with a study period from November 2017 to December 2018.Patients: Patients over 65 years old who were scheduled for elective MIE.Interventions: The GDT protocol included a baseline fluid supplement of 7 ml/kg/h Ringer's lactate solution and SVV optimization using colloid boluses assessed by pulse-contour analysis (PiCCO™). When SVV exceeded 11%, colloid was infused at a rate of 50 ml per minute; if SVV returned below 9% for at least 2 minutes, then colloid was stopped.Measurements: The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications before discharge, as assessed using a predefined list, including postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative hoarseness, postoperative pulmonary complications, chylothorax, myocardial injury, and all-cause mortality.Main Results: Sixty-five patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of postoperative complications between groups was similar (GDT 36.4% vs. control 37.5%, P = 0.92). The total fluid volume was not significantly different between the two groups (2,192 ± 469 vs. 2,201 ± 337 ml, P = 0.92). Compared with those in the control group (n = 32), patients in the GDT group (n = 33) received more colloids intraoperatively (874 ± 369 vs. 270 ± 67 ml, P <0.05) and less crystalloid fluid (1,318 ± 386 vs. 1,937 ± 334 ml, P <0.05).Conclusion: The colloid-based SVV optimization during GDT did not significantly reduce the incidence of early postoperative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy in elderly patients.Clinical Trial Number and Registry URL: ChiCTR-INR-17013352; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=22883

P175 TRANSLATION OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FROM RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL SETTING (TIME) TO NATIONAL PRACTICE (DUCA) IN NETHERLANDS

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Markar Sheraz ◽  
Ni Melody ◽  
Gisbertz Suzanne ◽  
Straatman Jennifer ◽  
van der Peet Donald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Time Trial ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Aims The TIME trial showed reduced pulmonary complications from minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) over an open approach, and led to widespread adoption of MIE in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes from minimally invasive esophagectomy in the DUCA (national dataset) and the TIME trial (RCT) for transthoracic esophagectomy1. Methods Original patient data from the TIME trial1 was extracted along-with data from the Dutch National Cancer Audit (DUCA) (2011-2017). Initially univariate analysis was used to compare patient and tumor demographics and clinical and pathological outcomes from patients receiving MIE in the TIME trial and in the DUCA-dataset. Secondly multivariate analysis, with adjustment patient and tumor factors, was performed for the effect of MIE vs. Open esophagectomy on clinical outcomes in both datasets. Thirdly the datasets were combined and multivariate analysis, was performed for the effect of patient inclusion in TIME trial or DUCA-dataset. Results 115 patients from TIME (59 MIE vs. 56 open) and 4605 patients from the DUCA-dataset (2652 MIE vs. 1953 open) were included. Univariate analysis showed, in TIME trial, MIE reduced postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. However in the DUCA-dataset, MIE increased postoperative complications, re-intervention rate and length of hospital stay, however pathological benefits included increased proportion of R0 margin and lymph nodes harvested. Multivariate analysis confirmed the TIME data showed MIE reduced postoperative complications (OR=0.38, 95%CI 0.16–0.90). In the DUCA-dataset, MIE was associated with increased postoperative complications (OR=1.37, 95%CI 1.20–1.55), re-intervention (OR=1.84, 95%CI 1.57–2.14), and length of hospital stay (Coeff=1.57, 95%CI 0.06–3.08). Pathological benefits to MIE in the DUCA-dataset included a reduction in proportion of R1 margin, and increased lymph node harvest. Multivariate analysis of the combined dataset, showed inclusion in the TIME trial was associated with a reduction in postoperative complications (OR=0.23, 95%CI 0.15–0.36) and reoperation rate (OR=0.34, 95%CI 0.17–0.66). Conclusions MIE when adopted nationally outside the TIME-trial, was associated with an increase in postoperative complications and reoperation rate, which may reflect surgeons on a national level going through their proficiency-gain curve in the technique and outside of expert MIE centers.

scholarly journals Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Bastiaan R Klarenbeek ◽  
Nikolaj Baranov ◽  
Maroeska M Rovers ◽  
Camiel Rosman
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Leakage Rate ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Lymph Node Count ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Node Count

Summary Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97–2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13–2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34–1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: −0.59—-0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

PS01.218: MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY IN ELDERLY PATIENTS AFTER MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 112-112
Author(s):  
Jeroen Hol ◽  
Joos Heisterkamp ◽  
Barbara Langenhoff
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Tumor Type ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background Elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery are at higher risk for postoperative complications and mortality. Currently available literature on elderly patients undergoing an esophagectomy is inconclusive and dates back from the time before minimally invasive techniques were implemented. Methods Length of hospital stay, 90-day morbidity and mortality were analyzed from patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) between 2014 and 2017 in a single center. Data from patients aged 76 years or older was compared to the cohort of patients aged 71 to 75 years old. Results From a consecutive series of in total 187 patients two cohorts were retrieved: 19 patients 76 years or older (group 1) were compared to 41 patients 71 to 75 years old (group 2). Median age was 77 years (76–83) in group 1 and 72 years (71–75) in group 2 (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in sex, Charlson comorbidity score, number of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiaton, histological tumor type, tumor stage, number of lymph nodes harvested and type of anastomosis. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay, 90-day morbidity and mortality. The percentage of anastomotic leakage was 21.2% in group 1 and 14.6% in group 2. Mortality was 10.5% and 4.9% respectively. Conclusion No difference was seen in morbidity and mortality after MIE comparing the eldest old to younger old patients. Therefore, patient selection should not be based on calendar age alone. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document