ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immediate start of oral intake is beneficial following colorectal surgery. However, following esophagectomy the safety and feasibility of immediate oral intake is unclear, thus these patients are still kept nil by mouth. This study therefore aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of oral nutrition immediately after esophagectomy. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective trial was conducted in 3 referral centers between August 2013 and May 2014, including 50 patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy. Oral nutrition was started postoperatively immediately (clear liquids on postoperative day [POD] 0, liquid nutrition on POD 1 to 6, solid food from POD 7). Nonoral enteral nutrition was started when <50% of caloric need was met on postoperative day POD 5 or when oral intake was impossible. A comparison was made with a retrospective cohort (n = 50) with a per-protocol delayed start of oral intake until POD 4 to 7. RESULTS: The median caloric intake at POD 5 was 58% of required. In 38% of the patients nonoral nutrition was started, mainly due to complications (36%). The pneumonia rate was 28% following immediate oral intake and 40% following delayed oral intake (p = 0.202). The aspiration pneumonia rate was 4% in both groups. The anastomotic leakage rate was 14% after immediate oral intake versus 24% following delayed oral intake (p = 0.202). The 90-day mortality rate was 2% in both groups. Hospital stay and intensive care unit stay were significantly shorter following immediate oral intake. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate start of oral nutrition following esophagectomy seems to be feasible and does not increase complications compared to a retrospective cohort and literature. However, if complications arise an alternative nutritional route is required. This explorative study shows that a randomized controlled trial is needed.
Subject(s)
Enteral Nutrition/methods , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophagectomy/methods , Laparoscopy/methods , Aged , Anastomosis, Surgical/adverse effects , Anastomosis, Surgical/methods , Anastomotic Leak/physiopathology , Anastomotic Leak/surgery , Chi-Square Distribution , Esophageal Neoplasms/mortality , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Esophagectomy/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Neoplasm Invasiveness/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Pneumonia, Aspiration/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Aspiration/therapy , Postoperative Care/methods , Postoperative Complications/physiopathology , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Statistics, Nonparametric , Survival Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIM: To investigate the value of elevated drain amylase concentrations for detecting anastomotic leakage (AL) after minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MI-ILE). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in two hospitals in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients undergoing MI-ILE were included. A Jackson-Pratt drain next to the dorsal side of the anastomosis and bilateral chest drains were placed at the end of the thoracoscopic procedure. Amylase levels in drain fluid were determined in all patients during at least the first four postoperative days. Contrast computed tomography scans and/or endoscopic imaging were performed in cases of a clinically suspected AL. Anastomotic leakage was defined as any sign of leakage of the esophago-gastric anastomosis on endoscopy, re-operation, radiographic investigations, post mortal examination or when gastro-intestinal contents were found in drain fluid. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to determine the cut-off values. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, risk ratio and overall test accuracy were calculated for elevated drain amylase concentrations. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were included between March 2013 and August 2014. No differences in group characteristics were observed between patients with and without AL, except for age. Patients with AL were older than were patients without AL (P = 0.01). One patient (1.1%) without AL died within 30 d after surgery due to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anastomotic leakage that required any intervention occurred in 15 patients (16.9%). Patients with proven anastomotic leakage had higher drain amylase levels than patients without anastomotic leakage [median 384 IU/L (IQR 34-6263) vs median 37 IU/L (IQR 26-66), P = 0.003]. Optimal cut-off values on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 were 350 IU/L, 200 IU/L and 160 IU/L, respectively. An elevated amylase level was found in 9 of the 15 patients with AL. Five of these 9 patients had early elevations of their amylase levels, with a median of 2 d (IQR 2-5) before signs and symptoms occurred. CONCLUSION: Measurement of drain amylase levels is an inexpensive and easy tool that may be used to screen for anastomotic leakage soon after MI-ILE. However, clinical validation of this marker is necessary.
