548 COMPARISON OF ESOPHAGECTOMY OUTCOMES BETWEEN A NATIONAL CENTER, A NATIONAL AUDIT COLLABORATIVE, AND AN INTERNATIONAL DATABASE USING ECCG STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS

Abstract

Abstract The ECCG developed a standardized platform for reporting operative complications, with consensus definitions, and DUCA adopted these definitions and have reported a comparison against these benchmarks. The aim of this study was to report five year complications data using the standardized definitions of the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and to compare with published ECCG benchmark studies from the collaborative group and from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). Methods All patients undergoing multimodal therapy or surgery with curative intent from 2014 to 2018 inclusive were studied. All data were recorded prospectively and maintained internally as well as entered onto a secure online database (Esodata.org) from 2015. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® (version 18.0). Results 219 patients (mean age 67; 77% male) underwent open resection, 66.6% via transthoracic en bloc resection. 30-day and 90-day mortality were 0.0 and 0.9%, respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 5.4%, and chyle leak 5.4%. Pneumonia was recorded in 18.2%, respiratory failure 10.9%, and ARDS in 2.7%. Atrial dysrhythmia occurred in 22.8%, recurrent nerve injury 3.1%, and delirium in 5.0%. Compared with both ECCG and DUCA, where MIE constituted 47% and 86% of surgical approaches, respectively, overall complications were similar in this open series, as was complications severity, however anastomotic leak rate were several-fold less, and mortality rates were lower. Conclusion In this unselected consecutive series and comparative audit with benchmark averages from the ECCG and DUCA publication, a low mortality and anastomotic leak rate were the key differential findings. Although not risk-stratified or directly matched, the severity of complications from this ‘open’ series is consistent with series containing large numbers of total or hybrid MIE, highlighting a need to adhere to these strictly defined definitions in further prospective research and randomized studies.