Surgery · 2024
Root cause analysis of mortality after esophagectomy for cancer: a multicenter cohort study from the FREGAT database.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Levenson Guillaume, Coutrot Maxime, Voron Thibault, Gronnier Caroline, Cattan Pierre, Hobeika Christian, D'Journo Xavier Benoît, Bergeat Damien, Glehen Olivier, Mathonnet Muriel, Piessen Guillaume, Goéré Diane
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is associated with significant mortality. A better understanding of the causes leading to death may help to reduce mortality. A root cause analysis of mortality after esophagectomy was performed.
METHODS: Root cause analysis was retrospectively applied by an independent expert panel of 4 upper gastrointestinal surgeons and 1 anesthesiologist-intensivist to patients included in the French national multicenter prospective cohort FREGAT between August 2014 and September 2019 who underwent an esophagectomy for cancer and died within 90 days of surgery. A cause-and-effect diagram was used to determine the root causes related to death. Death was classified as potentially preventable or non-preventable.
RESULTS: Among the 1,040 patients included in the FREGAT cohort, 70 (6.7%) patients (male: 81%, median age 68 [62-72] years) from 17 centers were included. Death was potentially preventable in 37 patients (53%). Root causes independently associated with preventable death were inappropriate indication (odds ratio 35.16 [2.50-494.39]; P = .008), patient characteristics (odds ratio 5.15 [1.19-22.35]; P = .029), unexpected intraoperative findings (odds ratio 18.99 [1.07-335.55]; P = .045), and delay in diagnosis of a complication (odds ratio 98.10 [6.24-1,541.04]; P = .001). Delay in treatment of a complication was found only in preventable deaths (28 [76%] vs 0; P < .001). National guidelines were less frequently followed (16 [43%] vs 22 [67%]; P = .050) in preventable deaths. The only independent risk factor of preventable death was center volume <26 esophagectomies per year (odds ratio 4.71 [1.55-14.33]; P = .006).
CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of deaths after esophagectomy were potentially preventable. Better patient selection, early diagnosis, and adequate management of complications through centralization could reduce mortality.
METHODS: Root cause analysis was retrospectively applied by an independent expert panel of 4 upper gastrointestinal surgeons and 1 anesthesiologist-intensivist to patients included in the French national multicenter prospective cohort FREGAT between August 2014 and September 2019 who underwent an esophagectomy for cancer and died within 90 days of surgery. A cause-and-effect diagram was used to determine the root causes related to death. Death was classified as potentially preventable or non-preventable.
RESULTS: Among the 1,040 patients included in the FREGAT cohort, 70 (6.7%) patients (male: 81%, median age 68 [62-72] years) from 17 centers were included. Death was potentially preventable in 37 patients (53%). Root causes independently associated with preventable death were inappropriate indication (odds ratio 35.16 [2.50-494.39]; P = .008), patient characteristics (odds ratio 5.15 [1.19-22.35]; P = .029), unexpected intraoperative findings (odds ratio 18.99 [1.07-335.55]; P = .045), and delay in diagnosis of a complication (odds ratio 98.10 [6.24-1,541.04]; P = .001). Delay in treatment of a complication was found only in preventable deaths (28 [76%] vs 0; P < .001). National guidelines were less frequently followed (16 [43%] vs 22 [67%]; P = .050) in preventable deaths. The only independent risk factor of preventable death was center volume <26 esophagectomies per year (odds ratio 4.71 [1.55-14.33]; P = .006).
CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of deaths after esophagectomy were potentially preventable. Better patient selection, early diagnosis, and adequate management of complications through centralization could reduce mortality.