BackgroundEarly diagnosis of sepsis and its differentiation from the noninfective SIRS is very important in order that treatment can be initiated in a timely and appropriate way. In this study we investigated standard haematological and biochemical parameters and thromboelastography (TEG) in patients who had undergone surgical resection of the oesophagus to find out if changes in any of these parameters could help in early differentiation between SIRS and sepsis development.MethodsWe enrolled 43 patients (aged 41–74 years) of whom 38 were evaluable. Blood samples were obtained on the morning of surgery and then at 24-hour intervals for the next 6 days. Samples were analysed for procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL- 6), aspartate transaminase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT) , lactate, white blood count (WBC), D-dimers, antithrombin (AT), international normalised ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and parameters of TEG.ResultsSignificant differences between patients who developed sepsis during this period (9 patients) and SIRS were found in ALT on Day 1, in AST on Days 1–4, in PCT on Days 2–6; in CRP on Days 3–6; in IL-6 on Days 2–5; in leucocytes on Days 2, 3 and 6; and in D-dimers on Days 2 and 4. Significance values ranged from p < 0.0001 to p < 0.05.ConclusionsSequential measurements of ALT, AST, PCT and IL-6 during the early postoperative period can be used for early differentiation of sepsis and postoperative SIRS after oesophagectomy. Among the coagulation parameters measured, only D-dimer concentrations appeared to be helpful in this process. TEG does not seem to be a useful early predictor of sepsis development; however it can be used to differentiate sepsis and SIRS from Day 5 after surgery.

Background The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international collaborative group set up to study anastomotic leak outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. This Delphi study aimed to prioritize future research areas of unmet clinical need in RCTs to reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods A modified Delphi process was overseen by the OGAA committee, national leads, and engaged clinicians from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). A three-stage iterative process was used to prioritize research topics, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), and two rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3) addressing research priority and ability to recruit. Stratified analyses were performed by country income. Results In stage 1, the steering committee proposed research topics across six domains: preoperative optimization, surgical oncology, technical approach, anastomotic technique, enhanced recovery and nutrition, and management of leaks. In stages 2 and stage 3, 192 and 171 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Prioritized research topics include prehabilitation, anastomotic technique, and timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Stratified analyses by country income demonstrated no significant differences in research priorities between HICs and LMICs. However, for ability to recruit, there were significant differences between LMICs and HICs for themes related to the technical approach (minimally invasive, width of gastric tube, ischaemic preconditioning) and location of the anastomosis. Conclusion Several areas of research priority are consistent across LMICs and HICs, but discrepancies in ability to recruit by country income will inform future study design.

Background The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Methods The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up. Results The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P &lt; 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P &lt; 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien–Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013). Conclusion Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.

No abstract

Introduction: Anastomotic leak (AL) is one of the most serious surgical complications after esophagectomy. Endoscopic, radiological and surgical methods are used in the treatment of AL. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate our therapeutic procedures and results of AL treatment after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE). Methods: Retrospective audit of all ILEs performed in the years 2005−2019. Evaluation of AL treatment results according to Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) classification and according to the primary therapeutic procedure with a focus on the treatment with esophageal stent. Results: Out of 817 patients with ILE, AL was detected in 80 patients (9.8%): ECCG type I 33 (41%), type II 23 (29%) and type III 24 (30%) patients. Some 33 patients (41%) were treated conservatively. Esophageal stents were used in 39 patients (49%), of which 18 (23%) had concomitant percutaneous drainage and 17 (21%) were reoperated. Reoperation without a stent insertion was performed in 7 patients (9%). Esophageal diversion with cervical esophagostomy was performed in a total of 16 patients (20%). Esophageal stent treatment was successful in 24/39 patients (62%). Airway fistula occurred in 4 patients treated with stent (10%). Endoscopic vacuum therapy was successfully used in three patients after stent failure. Eight patients (10%) died as a result of AL. Mortality of AL type I, II and III was 0%, 4% and 29%. Conclusion: Successful treatment of AL requires an individual and multidisciplinary approach. The primary effort should aim to preserve anastomosis using endoscopic and radiological methods. In case of insufficient clinical effect, we recommend not to hesitate with reoperation. If primary therapy fails, the life-saving procedure is a cervical esophagostomy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract