Background: Different prediction models for operative mortality after esophagectomy have been developed. The aim of this study is to independently validate prediction models from Philadelphia, Rotterdam, Munich, and the ASA. Methods: The scores were validated using logistic regression models in two cohorts of patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer from Switzerland (n∈=∈170) and Australia (n∈=∈176). Results: All scores except ASA were significantly higher in the Australian cohort. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or in-hospital death between groups. The Philadelphia and Rotterdam scores had a significant predictive value for 30-day mortality (p∈=∈0.001) and in-hospital death (p∈=∈0.003) in the pooled cohort, but only the Philadelphia score had a significant prediction value for 30-day mortality in both cohorts. Neither score showed any predictive value for in-hospital death in Australians but were highly significant in the Swiss cohort. ASA showed only a significant predictive value for 30-day mortality in the Swiss. For in-hospital death, ASA was a significant predictor in the pooled and Swiss cohorts. The Munich score did not have any significant predictive value whatsoever. Conclusion: None of the scores can be applied generally. A better overall predictive score or specific prediction scores for each country should be developed.

, , ,,
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Zingg, U, Langton, C, Addison, B, Wijnhoven, B.P.L, Forberger, J, Thompson, S.K, … Watson, D.I. (2009). Risk prediction scores for postoperative mortality after esophagectomy: Validation of different models. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 13(4), 611–618. doi:10.1007/s11605-008-0761-y