Analysis of risk factors for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome after esophagectomy.
- Author:
Jia Xuan XU
1
;
Hong Zhi WANG
1
;
Jun DONG
1
;
Xiao Jie CHEN
1
;
Yong YANG
1
;
Ren Xiong CHEN
1
;
Guo Dong WANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Beijing 100142, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Acute Lung Injury/etiology*;
Esophagectomy/adverse effects*;
Humans;
Respiration, Artificial;
Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology*;
Retrospective Studies;
Risk Factors
- From:
Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences)
2018;50(6):1057-1062
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To explore the incidence and risk factors for the acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after resection of esophageal carcinoma.
METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed 422 consecutive patients admitted to the Department of Critical Care Medicine with esophageal carcinoma undergoing esophagectomy from January 2010 to December 2016 in Peking University Cancer Hospital. ALI/ARDS were diagnosed, the patients were divided into ALI/ARDS group and control group without ALI/ARDS, the differences of clinical features were contrasted between the two groups, and the multivariate Logistic regression modeling was used to identify the independent risk factors for ALI/ARDS.
RESULTS:In the study, 41 ALI/ARDS cases were diagnosed, making up 9.7% (41/422) of all the enrolled patients undergoing esophagectomy. Comparisons of the ALI/ARDS group and the control group indicated significant statistical differences in the average length of their hospital stay [(18.9±9.7) d vs. (14.8±3.6) d, P=0.011], the proportion of the patients who needed mechanical ventilation support [51.2% (21/41) vs. 9.4% (36/381), P<0.001] and in-hospital mortality [31.7% (13/41) vs. 5.0% (19/381), P<0.001]. Univariate analysis showed significant differences between the patients with ALI/ARDS and without ALI/ARDS in smoking history (P=0.064), preoperative forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) (P=0.020), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (P=0.011), body weight index (BMI) (P=0.044), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification (P=0.049) and one lung ventilation duration (P=0.008), while multivariate Logistic regression analysis indicated that preoperative FEV1/FVC (OR=1.053, P=0.016, 95%CI 1.010-1.098), ASA physical status classification (OR=2.392, P=0.033, 95%CI 1.073-5.335) and one lung ventilation duration (OR=0.994, P=0.028, 95%CI 0.989-0.999) were the independent risk factors for ALI/ARDS after esophagectomy.
CONCLUSION:ALI/ARDS was a serious complication in patients undergoing esophagectomy associated with increment in length of hospital stay and in-hospital mortality. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis indicated that preoperative FEV1/FVC, ASA classification and one lung ventilation duration were the independent risk factors for ALI/ARDS after esophagectomy. Carefully assessing the patient before operation, shortening one lung ventilation duration were the key points in preventing ALI/ARDS after esophagectomy.
