Cover Image

Gastric preconditioning in advance of esophageal resection-systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications following esophageal resection. Among other strategies, gastric ischemic preconditioning has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether gastric preconditioning has...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Heger, Patrick (Author) , Blank, Susanne (Author) , Diener, Markus K. (Author) , Ulrich, Alexis (Author) , Schmidt, Thomas (Author) , Büchler, Markus W. (Author) , Mihaljevic, André Leopold (Author)
Format: Article (Journal)
Language:English
Published: September 2017
In: Journal of gastrointestinal surgery
Year: 2017, Volume: 21, Issue: 9, Pages: 1523-1532
ISSN:1873-4626
DOI:10.1007/s11605-017-3416-z
Online Access:Verlag, Volltext: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3416-z
Verlag, Volltext: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11605-017-3416-z
Get full text
Author Notes:Patrick Heger, Susanne Blank, Markus K. Diener, Alexis Ulrich, Thomas Schmidt, Markus W. Büchler, André L. Mihaljevic
Description
Summary:Background Anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications following esophageal resection. Among other strategies, gastric ischemic preconditioning has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether gastric preconditioning has influence on peri- or postoperative outcomes after esophageal resection. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing gastric preconditioning with nonpreconditioned patients for any indication of esophageal resection. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for main outcomes. Results Gastric preconditioning did not reduce anastomotic leakages (OR 0.76; 95%-CI 0.51 to 1.13; p = 0.18), anastomotic strictures (OR 1.10; 95%-CI 0.58 to 2.10; p = 0.76;), major complications (OR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.60 to 2.14; p = 0.69), or inhospital mortality (OR 0.62; 95%-CI 0.28 to 1.40; p = 0.25). However, preconditioning reduced the rate of severe leaks requiring reoperation (OR 0.20; 95%-CI 0.08 to 0.53; p = 0.001). Increasing the period between preconditioning and esophageal resection over 2 weeks did not reduce anastomotic leakage compared to shorter waiting times (OR 0.65; 95%-CI 0.38 to 1.13; p = 0.13). Conclusion With current evidence, gastric preconditioning does not seem to reduce overall rates of anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection but seems to reduce severity of leakages.
Item Description:Published 24 April 2017
Gesehen am 24.10.2018
Physical Description:Online Resource
ISSN:1873-4626
DOI:10.1007/s11605-017-3416-z

Similar Items