Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

  • study collaborators
  • , the TENTACLE – Esophagus collaborative group
  • Radboud University Medical Center
  • Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital
  • Maastricht UMC+
  • Amsterdam UMC
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Reinier de Graaf Groep
  • Department of Surgery, ZGT hospital, Almelo, the Netherlands
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
  • University of Groningen
  • Catharina Hospital
  • Erasmus MC
  • location VUmc
  • ETZ Elisabeth
  • Ziekenhuis Groep Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands
  • Martini Ziekenhuis
  • Zuyderland Medisch Centrum
  • Leiden University Medical Center
  • Netherlands Cancer Institute
  • Spaarne Gasthuis
  • St. Antonius Ziekenhuis
  • Albert Schweitzer Medical Center
  • Gelre
  • Medisch Spectrum Twente
  • Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands
  • IJsselland Ziekenhuis
  • Portsmouth Hospital University NHS Trust
  • University of Edinburgh
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Trinity College Dublin
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • University Hospital Zürich
  • Imperial College London
  • University of Helsinki
  • North Warwickshire Early Intervention in Psychosis Service, Conventry and Warwickshire National Health Service Partnership Trust, Coventry, United Kingdom
  • Newcastle Neonatal Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
  • Saint Savas Hospital
  • University of Manchester
  • Université de Lille
  • University of Leicester
  • Ghent University
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
  • General Surgery, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Samsun, Turkey
  • Patel Hospital, Pakistan
  • Laiko Hospital
  • Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova
  • Sf. Maria Hospital
  • Clínica Universitaria Colombia
  • Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy
  • University of Geneva
  • Universidade de São Paulo
  • Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla
  • Erzincan University
  • Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto Francisco Gentil E.P.E.
  • Ospedale Policlinico
  • Hospital Universitario La Fe
  • Clinical Genetics, Guy's and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • University of Milan
  • University of Tripoli
  • National Cancer Institute
  • Hunter New England Health
  • South Western Sydney Local Health District
  • Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João
  • Royal North Shore Hospital
  • St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne
  • Westmead Hospital
  • Royal Adelaide Hospital
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital Australia
  • Canberra Hospital
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Hospital de Basurto
  • University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
  • Hippokration General Hospital
  • Radboud University Nijmegen
  • Maastricht University
  • University of Amsterdam
  • ZGT Hospital
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Ziekenhuis Groep Twente
  • Leiden University
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • St. Antonius Hospital
  • Medisch Spectrum Twente (MST)
  • Isala
  • Karolinska University Hospital
  • University Medical Centre Mainz
  • Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki
  • Conventry and Warwickshire National Health Service Partnership Trust
  • Royal Victoria Infirmary
  • Samsun Training and Research Hospital
  • Patel Hospital
  • Guy’s Hospital
  • International Centre for Rural Health of the San Paolo Hospital

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

21 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)974-982
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean journal of surgical oncology
Volume49
Issue number5
Early online date2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2023

Keywords

  • Anastomotic leak
  • Complications
  • Esophagectomy
  • Failure to rescue
  • Practice variation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Unravelling differences in failure to rescue'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this