Risk factors contributing to morbidity associated with feeding tubes placed for esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy: a single-center retrospective study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Perioperative nutritional optimization of patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer is important as this population is prone to malnutrition associated with poor outcomes. Nutritional supplementation has been achieved via enteral nutrition through percutaneous feeding tubes such as gastrostomy (G-tubes) and surgical jejunostomy tubes (J-tubes). While they are often routinely placed for patients undergoing esophagectomy, these are associated with adverse events including infections, dislodgement, increased healthcare visits, among others. The morbidity associated with feeding tubes has not been well characterized. We aim to determine factors associated with adverse outcomes after feeding tube placement to guide appropriate use of feeding tubes in esophageal carcinoma patients. Methods: Patients who underwent esophagectomy for carcinoma and had at least one feeding tube placed from November, 2017 to October, 2021 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Subgroup analyses were performed testing for relevant characteristics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted evaluating outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was the overall rate of tube-related complications. Results: A total of 144 patients were included with 212 feeding tubes placed (75 G-tubes; 137 J-tubes). The rate of any adverse event related to feeding tubes was 39%. Of these, 11% were wound infections, 16% required procedural intervention, 11% visited the emergency department (ED), and 2.5% required admission due to feeding tube-related complications. Factors independently associated with adverse events included smoking history [odds ratio (OR), 2.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34–6.23], being female (OR, 2.98; 95% CI: 1.36–6.72), induction treatment (OR, 2.65; 95% CI: 1.14–6.55), and J-tubes (OR, 2.07; 95% CI: 1.09–4.03). Laparoscopically placed J-tubes were associated with increased unplanned admissions compared to those placed via laparotomy (9.4% vs. 0%, P=0.01). Though not statistically significant, there was a trend toward more complications in those who were high risk for malnutrition [body mass index (BMI) <18 kg/m2, weight loss >10%] and comorbid (Charlson Comorbidity Index 5–6). Conclusions: There is significant morbidity related to feeding tubes. The risk profile of these tubes for individual patients should be carefully weighed against the nutritional benefits prior to placement. Patients should be carefully counselled on the possible adverse events and care requirements.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».