Skip to main content

The role of surgery type in postoperative atrial fibrillation and in-hospital mortality in esophageal cancer patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Abstract

Background

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications of esophagectomy, which may extend the inpatient hospital stay. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly used in clinical practice; however, its POAF risk and short-term mortality remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the POAF risk and in-hospital mortality rate between patients receiving MIE and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE or OE from a retrospective cohort study were evaluated. A multivariate logistic regression model was built to assess the associations between esophagectomy (MIE vs. OE) and various outcomes (POAF, in-hospital mortality). Covariates included age, sex, body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor stage, surgery incision type, comorbidities, cardia conditions, peri-operative medication, and complications.

Results

Of the 484 patients with esophageal cancer, 63 received MIE. A total of 53 patients developed POAF. Compared to patients receiving OE, MIE patients had 81% reduced odds of POAF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.185, 95% CI 0.039–0.887, P = 0.035). No statistically significant association was found for in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.709, 95% CI 0.114–4.409, P = 0.712).

Conclusions

MIE is associated with a lower risk of POAF, compared to traditional surgery. No significant short-term survival benefit was found for MIE.

Introduction

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications of esophagectomy that often occur within 3 days after esophagectomy [1]. Studies showed that POAF could lead to a longer hospital stay and a greater incidence of other complications [2]. POAF risk is higher among patients who are older [3], racial/ethnic minorities [4], taking perioperative medications such as β-blocker [5], and having hypertension [6] or operative trauma [7].

In recent decades, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has become the preferred procedure for esophagectomy due to its faster recovery and improved quality of life [8,9,10]. However, the association between MIE and the risk of POAF has not been well documented. For example, several studies investigating postoperative complications of MIE grouped POAF with other cardiovascular complications together [11,12,13]. Other studies evaluating POAF risk as a single outcome yielded inconsistent results [14,15,16,17]: while one study reported decreased POAF risk after MIE [18], other studies did not find any association between MIE and POAF [16, 19]. Another gap in the literature is the lack of consistent short-term mortality rate data after MIE. Several studies concluded that MIE had favorable outcomes of in-hospital mortality [11, 20] while other studies suggested a non-significant result [21, 22]. It is important to investigate the POAF risk and short-term mortality after MIE.

In the present study, we aimed to examine the association of esophagectomy surgery type (MIE vs. open esophagectomy [OE]) with POAF risk, and in-hospital mortality.

Materials and methods

Study population

Stage 0, I, or II esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE or OE between January 2005 and April 2012 in Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, were identified, among which, patients with preoperative records or history of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, paced rhythm, and mid-range (40–49%) or reduced (< 40%) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [23] were excluded from this study (n = 8). The dataset was obtained from an online platform “FigShare” which provides a public accessible de-identified dataset (https://figshare.com/articles/Association_between_Postoperatively_Developed_Atrial_Fibrillation_and_Long-Term_Mortality_after_Esophagectomy_in_Esophageal_Cancer_Patients_An_Observational_Study/3306883) [24]. FigShare is a repository where users can make all of their research outputs available in a citable, shareable, and discoverable manner. Data from FigShare is available under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) which allows anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy data from FigShare [25].

Variables

Exposure and outcome

Exposure variable is surgery type: MIE vs. OE. MIE included thoracoscopy, thoracoscopy combined with laparoscopy, or robot-assisted thoracoscopy. The primary outcome was POAF, defined as the newly developed AF after esophagectomy prior to discharge that required therapy irrespective of the AF duration. Treatments for POAF included electrical and medication cardioversion (300 mg amiodarone of intravenous bolus followed by 1500 mg/day for 24 h) [24]. The secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality (mortality during hospital stay or within 30 days after surgery).

Covariates

Previous studies have shown that demographic factors [3], comorbidity and perioperative medication [26,27,28], cardiac assessment [29], and oncological characteristics [17] were associated with the incidence of POAF. Therefore, in the multivariable analysis of POAF, covariates included age (< 60 and ≥ 60 years), sex, body mass index (BMI < 25 kg/m2 and ≥ 25 kg/m2), cancer stage (0, I, and II), diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN), type of incision (Ivor Lewis, McKeown, and transhiatal), preoperative heart rate (HR) (by quartiles), preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (by quartiles), β-blocker use, diuretics use, and neoadjuvant therapy. In the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a laparotomy was performed with a gastroepiploic artery reserved, followed by a right thoracotomy, resection of the esophagus. In the transhiatal esophagectomy, the esophageal tumor was removed through an abdominal incision, without thoracotomy, and a left neck incision. McKeown esophagectomy included thoracic esophageal mobilization, lymph node dissection, ligate thoracic duct (thoracoscopic or open), abdominal exploration (laparoscopic or open), stomach mobilization, lymph node dissection, feeding jejunostomy, and left cervical incision for anastomosis.

In addition, previous research reported that perioperative complications (anastomotic leak, pneumonia, sepsis) were associated with POAF [19, 30, 31]. However, because the timing of the occurrences of POAF and the complications were not well documented in this dataset, we did not control for these complications as confounders in the main analysis of POAF but conducted a sensitivity analysis with adjustment of the three complications.

For short-term survival (in-hospital mortality), previous studies suggested that demographic factors [32], medical history [33], complications [34], and oncological characteristics [35] are associated with mortality rate of cancer patients. Thus, multivariable analysis of in-hospital mortality adjusted for all the covariates in POAF analysis except preoperative HR and LVEF, and additionally adjusted for postoperative complications including pneumonia, anastomotic leak, sepsis, and acute kidney injury.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were compared between MIE and OE, using descriptive statistics. Categorical variables were demonstrated in frequency and compared by the chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of surgery type with POAF, in-hospital mortality, adjusting for potential confounders. All analyses were processed using Stata (Stata Statistical Software, version 16; StataCorp LP). Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Of 482 patients, 419 patients underwent OE and 63 received MIE. The majority of the patients were male, over 60 years old, with BMI < 25 kg/m2, without DM or HTN comorbidities, without β-blocker or diuretics use, and not having perioperative complications of pneumonia or anastomotic leak. Compared to OE patients, MIE patients were more likely to have DM, anastomotic leak from surgery, and McKeown incision type. In total, 53 (11.0%) patients developed POAF, including 48 (11.5%) among OE patients and 5 (7.9%) among MIE patients (P = 0.519). There were five cases of POAF associated with anastomotic leak. Large amounts of patients (n = 344) in this dataset underwent intrathoracic anastomosis, 21 of these had anastomotic leak. Among patients who underwent intrathoracic anastomosis and subsequently complicated with leak, four of them developed POAF. Among 17 (3.5%) patients dying in the hospital or within 30 days after surgery, 14 (3.3%) were OE patients and 3 (4.8%) were MIE patients (P = 0.476) (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of patients undergoing open esophagectomy and minimally invasive esophagectomy (data are presented as n (%))

After adjusting for confounders, MIE was significantly associated with lower POAF risk compared to OE (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.185, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.039–0.887, P = 0.035). Older patients (aOR for age = 6.194, 95% CI 2.035–18.849, P = 0.001) and patients receiving McKeown (aOR = 2.742, 95% CI 1.075–6.990, P = 0.035) had a higher risk of POAF compared to their counterparts (Table 2). In sensitivity analysis with adjustment of complications, similar results were found: compared to OE, MIE was negatively associated with POAF (aOR = 0.186, 95% CI 0.040–0.876, P = 0.033). The aOR for the complications were 1.361 (0.305–6.078, P = 0.686) for anastomotic leak, 2.324 (0.385–14.044, P = 0.358) for sepsis, 1.117 (0.181–6.894, P = 0.905) for pneumonia, and 0.789 (0.372–1.670, P = 0.535) for acute kidney injury (Table S1).

Table 2 Adjusted odds ratio of postoperative atrial fibrillation

No statistically significant associations between MIE and in-hospital mortality were found (aOR = 0.709, 95% CI 0.114–4.409, P = 0.712) (Table 3). Having peri-operative complications of pneumonia (aOR = 48.763, 95% CI 3.716–639.874, P = 0.003) was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (Table 3).

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratio of in-hospital mortality

Discussion

With the increasing use of MIE, it is urgent to understand the POAF risk after MIE among patients with esophageal cancer. Using hospital-based data, we found that MIE is associated with decreased risk of POAF. However, the association between MIE and in-hospital mortality was not significant.

A few previous studies investigated POAF risk after MIE, but results remain inconsistent [17, 36, 37]. A laparoscopic technique associated with a reduced POAF was found in an early study with patients undergoing foregut surgery [36] (OR = 0.09, 95% CI 0.01–0.95, P = 0.04). However, research in Creighton University showed that minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy was not associated with a lower risk of POAF (40.5% in OE vs. 59.5% in MIE, P = 0.34) [17]. A study conducted in University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht revealed a marginally significant association (P = 0.075) [37]. In this study, after adjusted potential confounders, we found a negative association between MIE and POAF. The possible explanation of reduction in POAF noted with MIE may be due to the minimization of trauma leading to a status of decrease in inflammation [38, 39].

Previous researches identified an interactive effect of POAF and perioperative inflammatory complications such as sepsis and pneumonia [40, 41]. Since the sequence of POAF and these complications cannot be determined in the dataset, we did not adjust for these complications in the multivariable analysis to avoid over-adjustment. However, in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for anastomotic leak, sepsis, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, the coefficients of these covariates were not significant.

Two additional predictors for POAF in this study were age and type of incision. The positive association between age and POAF was consistent with previous studies [40, 42, 43]. The increased POAF risk for older patients could be due to the acceleration of age-dependent fibrotic changes in Pgc-1β−/− hearts. The latest study made a comparison between Ivor Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy [44], showing that McKeown esophagectomy was associated with more incisional surgical site infections and anastomotic leak, which may justify the positive association between McKeown procedure and POAF.

In short-term survival, inconsistency was found in previous studies [11, 20,21,22]. MIE was found associated with lower in-hospital mortality in a Japanese Inpatient Database (1.2% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.048) [20] and from a meta-analysis (OR = 0.668, 95% CI 0.539–0.827, P < 0.05) [11]. However, a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial showed an insignificant relationship between procedures and mortality [21]. In our study, the in-hospital mortality of MIE and OE was not significantly different, which suggests that MIE may reduce the risk of POAF, but the advantage did not extend to short-term survival.

Despite the strengths of hospital-based large sample size and short-term follow-up, this study has two limitations. The first one is generalizability. This study was conducted in an advanced comprehensive medical care center in a developed country. It needs to be cautious to apply the results from this study to other community healthcare settings. Another limitation is the lack of preoperative assessment of left atrial. The study showed that reduced left atrial emptying fraction was associated with the development of POAF [45]. Thus, left atrial mechanical dysfunction may contribute to the risk stratifying of POAF before esophagectomy.

In future studies, assessment of inflammatory characteristics will be helpful to understand the potential mechanism of a lower risk of POAF in MIE. Given the decreased POAF risk from MIE, the future use of new robot-assisted esophagectomy is promising. Additionally, amiodarone and rapid atrial pacing were effective in the prevention of POAF in cardiac surgery [46]. Efforts should be made to carry out further studies examining the development of prophylactic interventions for minimizing the risk of POAF after esophagectomy.

Conclusion

Compared to OE, MIE is a superior option in reducing POAF risk without a substantial impact on the short-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer.

Availability of data and materials

The de-identified dataset used in this study was obtained from an online platform “FigShare” which is a repository where users can make all of their research outputs available in a citable, shareable, and discoverable manner. Data from FigShare is available under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) which allows anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy data from FigShare [25].

References

  1. 1.

    Aranki SF, Shaw DP, Adams DH, Rizzo RJ, Couper GS, VanderVliet M, et al. Predictors of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery surgery. Current trends and impact on hospital resources. Circulation. 1996;94(3):390–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.94.3.390.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Chen LT, Jiang CY. Impact of atrial arrhythmias after esophagectomy on recovery: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(23):e10948. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010948.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bessissow A, Khan J, Devereaux PJ, Alvarez-Garcia J, Alonso-Coello P. Postoperative atrial fibrillation in non-cardiac and cardiac surgery: an overview. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(Suppl 1):S304–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Efird JT, Gudimella P, O’Neal WT, Griffin WF, Landrine H, Kindell LC, et al. Comparison of risk of atrial fibrillation in black versus white patients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(7):1095–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.12.056.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yokota J, Nishi H, Sekiya N, Yamada M, Takahashi T. Atrial fibrillation following aortic valve replacement: impact of perioperative use of intravenous beta-blocker. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;65(4):194–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-016-0738-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Coletta MJ, Lis G, Clark P, Dabir R, Daneshvar F. Reducing new-onset atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2019;30(3):249–58. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2019470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Zakkar M, Ascione R, James AF, Angelini GD, Suleiman MS. Inflammation, oxidative stress and postoperative atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery. Pharmacol Ther. 2015;154:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.06.009.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    van Hillegersberg R, Seesing MF, Brenkman HJ, Ruurda JP. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Chirurg. 2017;88(Suppl 1):7–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0200-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Asti E, Bernardi D, Sozzi M, Bonavina L. Minimally invasive esophagectomy for Barrett’s adenocarcinoma. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3:77. https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh.2018.09.16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kingma BF, de Maat MFG, van der Horst S, van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) improves perioperative outcomes: a review. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(Suppl 5):S735-S42. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.11.104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Yibulayin W, Abulizi S, Lv H, Sun W. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):304. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1062-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Klevebro F, Elliott JA, Slaman A, Vermeulen BD, Kamiya S, Rosman C, et al. Cardiorespiratory comorbidity and postoperative complications following esophagectomy: a European multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(9):2864–73. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07478-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dali D, Howard T, Mian Hashim H, Goldman CD, Franko J. Introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy in a community teaching hospital. JSLS. 2017;21(1). https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00099.

  14. 14.

    Zhou C, Zhang L, Wang H, Ma X, Shi B, Chen W, et al. Superiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing in-hospital mortality of patients with resectable oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132889. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132889.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ueda T, Suzuki K, Matsunaga T, Takamochi K, Oh S. Postoperative atrial fibrillation is less frequent in pulmonary segmentectomy compared with lobectomy. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;66(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-017-0858-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Day RW, Jaroszewski D, Chang YH, Ross HJ, Paripati H, Ashman JB, et al. Incidence and impact of postoperative atrial fibrillation after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29(6):583–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12355.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lohani KR, Nandipati KC, Rollins SE, Fetten K, Lee TH, Pallati PK, et al. Transthoracic approach is associated with increased incidence of atrial fibrillation after esophageal resection. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(7):2039–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3908-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Smith H, Li H, Brandts-Longtin O, Yeung C, Maziak D, Gilbert S, et al. External validity of a model to predict postoperative atrial fibrillation after thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz341.

  19. 19.

    Stawicki SP, Prosciak MP, Gerlach AT, Bloomston M, Davido HT, Lindsey DE, et al. Atrial fibrillation after esophagectomy: an indicator of postoperative morbidity. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;59(6):399–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-010-0713-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sakamoto T, Fujiogi M, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H. Comparing perioperative mortality and morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a nationwide retrospective analysis. Ann Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003500.

  21. 21.

    Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9829):1887–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fontan AJA, Batista-Neto J, Pontes ACP, Nepomuceno MDC, Muritiba TG, Furtado RDS. Minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy vs. transhiatal open esophagectomy in achalasia: a randomized study. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2018;31(3):e1382. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020180001e1382.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mele D, Nardozza M, Ferrari R. Left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure: an indissoluble marriage? Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20(3):427–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chin JH, Moon YJ, Jo JY, Han YA, Kim HR, Lee EH, et al. Association between postoperatively developed atrial fibrillation and long-term mortality after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: an observational study. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154931.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Singh J. FigShare. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2(2):138–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.81919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Chequel M, Ollitrault P, Saloux E, Parienti JJ, Fischer MO, Desgue J, et al. Preoperative plasma aldosterone levels and postoperative atrial fibrillation occurrence following cardiac surgery: a review of literature and design of the ALDO-POAF Study (ALDOsterone for Prediction of Post-Operative Atrial Fibrillation). Curr Clin Pharmacol. 2016;11(3):150–8. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574884711666160714162128.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Gorczyca I, Michta K, Pietrzyk E, Wozakowska-Kaplon B. Predictors of post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Kardiol Pol. 2018;76(1):195–201. https://doi.org/10.5603/KP.a2017.0203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Seesing MFJ, Borggreve AS, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. New-onset atrial fibrillation after esophagectomy for cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(Suppl 5):S831-S4. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.02.03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Sabry AM, Mansour HAE, Abo El-Azm TH, Mostafa SA, Zahid BS. Echocardiographic predictors of atrial fibrillation after mitral valve replacement. Egypt Heart J. 2017;69(4):281–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2017.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mc Cormack O, Zaborowski A, King S, Healy L, Daly C, O’Farrell N, et al. New-onset atrial fibrillation post-surgery for esophageal and junctional cancer: incidence, management, and impact on short- and long-term outcomes. Ann Surg. 2014;260(5):772–8; discussion 8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Keller M, Meierhenrich R. New onset atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis. Anaesthesist. 2017;66(10):786–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-017-0334-0.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Aoyama T, Hara K, Kazama K, Atsumi Y, Tamagawa H, Tamagawa A, et al. The short- and long-term outcomes of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in patients older than 75 years. Anticancer Res. 2020;40(2):1087-93. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hodges SS. A single-center retrospective chart review to determine whether the presence of comorbidities affects colon cancer screenings in African Americans. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2020;43(1):40–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Makuuchi R, Irino T, Tanizawa Y, Bando E, Kawamura T, Terashima M. Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage following gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Today. 2019;49(3):187–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-018-1726-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Otaki F, Ma GK, Krigel A, Dierkhising RA, Lewis JT, Blevins CH, et al. Outcomes of patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.01.013.

  36. 36.

    Turaga KK, Shah KU, Neill EO, Mittal SK. Does laparoscopic surgery decrease the risk of atrial fibrillation after foregut surgery? Surg Endosc. 2009;23(1):204–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9800-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Seesing MFJ, Scheijmans JCG, Borggreve AS, van Hillegersberg R, Ruurda JP. The predictive value of new-onset atrial fibrillation on postoperative morbidity after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy028.

  38. 38.

    Mihos CG, Santana O, Lamas GA, Lamelas J. Incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing minimally invasive versus median sternotomy valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;146(6):1436–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.09.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chang C, Raza S, Altarabsheh SE, Delozier S, Sharma UM, Zia A, et al. Minimally invasive approaches to surgical aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(6):1881–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Chebbout R, Heywood EG, Drake TM, Wild JRL, Lee J, Wilson M, et al. A systematic review of the incidence of and risk factors for postoperative atrial fibrillation following general surgery. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(4):490–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14118.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Quinn R, Mansfield M, Brown A, Rangiah D. Morbidity and mortality with atrial fibrillation following colorectal surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2018;88(10):1003–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Keller K, Hobohm L, Engelhardt M. Impact of atrial fibrillation on postoperative adverse outcomes of surgical patients with knee endoprosthetic surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(11):3567–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Valli H, Ahmad S, Chadda KR, Al-Hadithi A, Grace AA, Jeevaratnam K, et al. Age-dependent atrial arrhythmic phenotype secondary to mitochondrial dysfunction in Pgc-1β deficient murine hearts. Mech Ageing Dev. 2017;167:30–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2017.09.002.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Sabra MJ, Alwatari YA, Wolfe LG, Xu A, Kaplan BJ, Cassano AD, et al. Ivor Lewis vs Mckeown esophagectomy: analysis of operative outcomes from the ACS NSQIP database. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-020-01290-w.

  45. 45.

    Raman T, Roistacher N, Liu J, Zhang H, Shi W, Thaler HT, et al. Preoperative left atrial dysfunction and risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation complicating thoracic surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):482–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.08.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Crystal E. Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: evidence on prophylactic interventions. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2003;1(2):187–90. https://doi.org/10.1586/14779072.1.2.187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ji-Hyun Chin, Young-Jin Moon, and others in the Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, for providing the dataset.

Funding

This research was supported by the Clemson University Department of Public Health’s internal funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the work (Laite Chen, Lu Zhang, Lu Shi, Guosheng Fu, Chenyang Jiang). Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content (Laite Chen, Lu Zhang, Lu Shi, Guosheng Fu, Chenyang Jiang). Final approval of the version to be published (Laite Chen, Lu Zhang, Lu Shi, Guosheng Fu, Chenyang Jiang). Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved (Laite Chen, Lu Zhang, Lu Shi, Guosheng Fu, Chenyang Jiang).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chenyang Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research protocol was approved, and the requirement of written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board in Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (AMC IRB 2013–0959).

Consent for publication

As the editorial policies of World Journal of Surgical Oncology states: “In cases where there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication may not be required.”

The de-identified dataset used in this study was obtained from an online platform “FigShare” (https://figshare.com/articles/Association_between_Postoperatively_Developed_Atrial_Fibrillation_and_Long-Term_Mortality_after_Esophagectomy_in_Esophageal_Cancer_Patients_An_Observational_Study/3306883). Data from FigShare is available under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) which allows anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy data from FigShare [25].

In addition, the research protocol was approved, and the requirement of written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board in Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (AMC IRB 2013–0959) [24].

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Adjusted odds ratio of postoperative atrial fibrillation in sensitivity analysis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, L., Zhang, L., Shi, L. et al. The role of surgery type in postoperative atrial fibrillation and in-hospital mortality in esophageal cancer patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. World J Surg Onc 18, 244 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-02011-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Esophagectomy
  • Postoperative atrial fibrillation
  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • Esophageal cancer
  • Mortality