Impact of preoperative risk factors on morbidity after esophagectomy: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: Despite progress in multidisciplinary treatment of esophageal cancer, oncologic esophagectomy is still the cornerstone of therapeutic strategies. Several scoring systems are used to predict postoperative morbidity, but in most cases they identify nonmodifiable parameters. The aim of this study was to identify potentially modifiable risk factors associated with complications after oncologic esophagectomy. METHODS: All consecutive patients with complete data sets undergoing oncologic esophagectomy in our department during 2001-2011 were included in this study. As potentially modifiable risk factors we assessed nutritional status depicted by body mass index (BMI) and preoperative serum albumin levels, excessive alcohol consumption, and active smoking. Postoperative complications were graded according to a validated 5-grade system. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify preoperative risk factors associated with the occurrence and severity of complications. RESULTS: Our series included 93 patients. Overall morbidity rate was 81 % (n = 75), with 56 % (n = 52) minor complications and 18 % (n = 17) major complications. Active smoking and excessive alcohol consumption were associated with the occurrence of severe complications, whereas BMI and low preoperative albumin levels were not. The simultaneous presence of two or more of these risk factors significantly increased the risk of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of malnutrition, active smoking and alcohol consumption were found to have a negative impact on postoperative morbidity rates. Therefore, preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation counseling and monitoring and improving the nutritional status are strongly recommended.

ECG interpretation during the acute phase of coronary syndromes: in need of improvement?

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Emergency room (ER) interpretation of the ECG is critical to assessment of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Our aim was to assess its reliability in our institution, a tertiary teaching hospital. METHODS: Over a 6-month period all consecutive patients admitted for ACS were included in the study. ECG interpretation by emergency physicians (EPs) was recorded on a preformatted sheet and compared with the interpretation of two specialist physicians (SPs). Discrepancies between the 2 specialists were resolved by an ECG specialist. RESULTS: Over the 6-month period, 692 consecutive patients were admitted with suspected ACS. ECG interpretation was available in 641 cases (93%). Concordance between SPs was 87%. Interpretation of normality or abnormality of the ECG was concordant between EPs and SPs in 475 cases (74%, kappa = 0.51). Interpretation of ischaemic modifications was concordant in 69% of cases, and as many ST segment elevations were unrecognised as overdiagnosed (5% each). The same findings occurred for ST segment depressions and negative T waves (12% each). CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of the ECG recorded during ACS by 2 SPs was discrepant in 13% of cases. Similarly, EP interpretation was discrepant from SP interpretation in 25% of cases, equally distributed between over- and underdiagnosing of ischaemic changes. The clinical implications and impact of medical education on ECG interpretation require further study.