The Role of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing as a Risk Assessment Tool in Patients Undergoing Oesophagectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Autor: Sivakumar J; Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. sivakumar.jonathan@gmail.com.; Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. sivakumar.jonathan@gmail.com., Sivakumar H; Department of Anaesthesia, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia., Read M; Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia., Sinclair RCF; Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK., Snowden CP; Department of Anaesthesia, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK., Hii MW; Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.; Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Annals of surgical oncology [Ann Surg Oncol] 2020 Oct; Vol. 27 (10), pp. 3783-3796. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jun 02.
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08638-9
Abstrakt: Introduction: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is an objective method of assessing functional capacity to meet the metabolic demands of surgery and has been adopted as a preoperative risk-stratification tool for patients undergoing major procedures. The two main measures are the peak rate of oxygen uptake during exercise ([Formula: see text]O 2 peak) and anaerobic threshold (AT), the point at which anaerobic metabolism exceeds aerobic metabolism during exercise. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the predictive value of CPET for patients undergoing oesophagectomy.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in databases of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies that examined associations between preoperative CPET variables and postoperative outcomes following oesophagectomy. Results were presented as standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval.
Results: Seven studies were included in this review. Preoperative [Formula: see text]O 2 peak moderately correlated with cardiopulmonary complications [SMD = - 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.77 to - 0.09; p = 0.013; I 2  = 80.4%], unplanned ICU admissions (SMD = - 0.34; 95% CI - 0.60 to - 0.08; p = 0.011; I 2  = 0.0%), and 1-year survival (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI 0.02-0.61; p = 0.045; I 2  = 0.0%). Preoperative AT values moderately correlated with unplanned ICU admissions (SMD = - 0.34; 95% CI - 0.61 to - 0.07; p = 0.014; I 2  = 0.0%), and 1-year survival (SMD = 0.34; 95% CI 0.00-0.68; p = 0.049; I 2  = 7.4%). Neither [Formula: see text]O 2 peak nor AT demonstrated prognostic value for noncardiopulmonary complications.
Conclusions: [Formula: see text]O 2 peak and AT, where measured by preoperative CPET testing, are inversely associated with postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, unplanned ICU admissions, and 1-year survival following oesophagectomy. This meta-analysis was not able to identify an absolute cutoff value for CPET variables to discriminate between patients of varying levels of operative risk.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: