Life Support in the ICU: Outcomes among Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND

Postoperative intensive care use after gastrointestinal cancer surgery may reflect evolving perioperative triage, yet national patterns of ICU admission and life-support intervention use remain poorly defined.

STUDY

DESIGN

Adults undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery identified in Epic Cosmos between 2016 and 2025 were identified. ICU admission and postoperative life-support intervention use, defined as invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than or equal to 24 consecutive hours or continuous vasopressor infusion during the index hospitalization, were assessed over time. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated predictors of life-support use and associations with short-term outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors.

RESULTS

Among 376,503 patients, 21.8% (n = 82,076) underwent postoperative ICU admission; 88.6% (n = 72,702) of individuals received life-support interventions. From 2016 to 2025, ICU admissions declined by 8.4% (95% CI 6.7 to 10.1), whereas life-support intervention use increased by 24.2% (95% CI 22.8 to 25.6; both p < 0.001). Life-support intervention use was more frequent among male patients (59.3% vs 56.9%), patients with comorbidity (53.7% vs 44.8%), and emergency presentations (24.7% vs 17.8%; all p < 0.001). Compared with colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer surgery had the highest odds of life-support intervention use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.42, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.72). Life-support intervention use was associated with prolonged hospitalization (aOR 2.89, 95% CI 2.66 to 3.14), complications (aOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.04), 30-day mortality (aOR 2.82, 95% CI 2.50 to 3.19), and lower odds of discharge home (aOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.27; all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

After gastrointestinal cancer surgery, ICU use declined, whereas life-support intervention use increased, indicating more selective concentration of higher-acuity postoperative care. Life-support intervention use was strongly associated with adverse short-term outcomes and it may serve as a marker of postoperative severity to inform perioperative risk stratification and critical care resource planning.