Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0154059 (Esophagus)
 2,950 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

One-lung ventilation (OLV) is applied during esophagectomy to improve exposure during the thoracic part of the operation. Collapse of lung tissue, shunting of pulmonary blood flow, and changes in alveolar oxygenation during and after OLV may possibly induce an ischemia-reperfusion response in the lung, which may affect the pulmonary endothelium. Such a reaction might thereby contribute to the frequently occurring respiratory complications among these patients. In this small trial, 30 patients were randomized to either OLV (n= 16) or two-lung ventilation (TLV, n= 14) during esophagectomy. Central venous and arterial plasma samples were taken before and after OLV/TLV for analysis of nitrite and a metabolite of nitric oxide (NO), and also during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 10th postoperative day for analysis of endothelin, another endothelium-derived vasoactive mediator. Lung biopsies were taken before and after OLV or TLV, and analyzed regarding immunofluorescence for isoform of NO synthase, a protein upregulated during inflammatory response and also vascular congestion. No changes in lung isoform of NO synthase immunofluorescence or vascular congestion were registered after neither OLV nor TLV. Plasma nitrite and endothelin levels were similar in the two study groups. We conclude that OLV does not seem to have any influence on key regulators of pulmonary vascular tone and inflammation, i.e. NO and endothelin. From this perspective, OLV seems to be a safe method, which defends its clinical position to facilitate surgical exposure during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy.
Dis Esophagus
PMID:Nitric oxide and endothelin-1 release after one-lung ventilation during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy. 2288 70

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways aim to accelerate functional return and discharge from hospital. They have proven effective in many forms of surgery, most notably colorectal. However, experience in esophagectomy has been limited. A recent study reported significant reductions in pulmonary complications, mortality, and length of stay following the introduction of an ERAS protocol alone, without the introduction of any clinical changes. We instituted a similar change 16 months ago, introducing a protocol to provide a formal framework, for our existing postoperative care. This retrospective analysis compared outcome following esophagectomy for the 16 months before and 20 months after this change. Data were collected from prospectively maintained secure web-based multidisciplinary databases. Complication severity was classified using the Clavien-Dindo scale. Operative mortality was defined as death within 30 days of surgery, or at any point during the same hospital admission. Lower respiratory tract infection was defined as clinical evidence of infection, with or without radiological signs. Respiratory complications included lower respiratory tract infection, pleural effusion (irrespective of drainage), pulmonary collapse, and pneumothorax. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v21. One hundred thirty-two patients underwent esophagectomy (55 protocol group; 77 before). All were performed open. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, operation, use of neoadjuvant therapy, cell type, stage, tumor site, or American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Median length of stay was 14.0 days (protocol) compared with 12.0 before (interquartile range 9-19 and 9.5-15.5, respectively; P = 0.073, Mann-Whitney U-test). Readmission within 30 days of discharge occurred in five (9.26%) and six (8.19%; P = 1.000, Fisher's exact test). There were four in-hospital deaths (3.03%): one (1.82%) and three (3.90%), respectively (P = 0.641). There were no differences in the severity of complications (P = non-significant; Pearson's chi-squared). There were no differences in the type of complications occurring in either group. The protocol was completed successfully by 26 (47.3%). No baseline factors were predictive of this. In contrast to previous studies, we did not demonstrate any improvement in outcome by formalizing our existing pathway using a written protocol. Consequently, improvements in short-term outcome from esophagectomy within ERAS would seem to be primarily due to improvements in components of perioperative care. Consequently, we would recommend that centers introducing new (or reviewing existing) ERAS pathways for esophagectomy focus on optimizing clinical aspects of such standardized pathways.
Dis Esophagus
PMID:The effect of formalizing enhanced recovery after esophagectomy with a protocol. 2483 9