Back to all available

Association between preoperative diagnosis of small airway disease and postoperative pneumonia in resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a retrospective cohort study

oncology
respiratory-medicine
surgery-and-surgical-specialties

Abstract

Background

Esophageal cancer, specifically esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), poses a significant health challenge characterized by a poor prognosis and high mortality rates. Surgical interventions, such as minimally invasive esophagectomy, are the primary treatment approach; however, the occurrence of postoperative complications, particularly pneumonia, presents substantial risks. Small airway disease (SAD) affecting the bronchioles’ small airways is a frequently underestimated respiratory condition with potential implications for the postoperative outcomes of ESCC patients.

Methods

From January 2020 to December 2023, the McKeown procedure was exclusively utilized as the treatment modality for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients in this retrospective study. Rigorous diagnostic criteria for small airway disease and postoperative pneumonia were employed, followed by detailed statistical analyses using logistic regression models with adjustments for confounding variables. Both multivariate and univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors contributing to postoperative pneumonia incidence.

Results

A total of 293 participants were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics analysis revealed that individuals with small airway disease exhibited impaired small airway function, lower pre-albumin levels, a higher incidence of pulmonary infection, and longer hospital stays compared to those without SAD. Univariate logistic analysis identified SAD as a strong independent predictor for postoperative pneumonia, with individuals with SAD having a significantly higher risk compared to those without SAD. Multivariate logistic analysis further confirmed this association, demonstrating a robust relationship between SAD and postoperative pneumonia risk even after adjusting for confounding factors.

Conclusion

The preoperative identification of SAD is significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative pneumonia in resectable ESCC patients, highlighting the importance of addressing small airway disease in perioperative management to enhance clinical outcomes. These findings underscore the significance of recognizing and managing SAD as a potential risk factor in strategies for preventing and managing postoperative pneumonia.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].