Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35840177›Full record

ArticleOpen heart2022

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for cardiovascular risk assessment in patients undergoing gastric and oesophageal cancer surgery: results from a prospective interventional cohort study.

Maryam Ozova, Petr Chomakhidze, Maria Poltavskaya, Dmitry Vychuzhanin, Philippe Kopylov, Hugo Saner, Denis Andreev

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Measurement and optimization of perioperative risk among patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Maryam OzovaClinic for Cardiology, Sechenov University, Moskva, Russian Federation.
Petr ChomakhidzeResearch Center "Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare"; Department of Cardiology, Functional and Ultrasound Diagnostics of N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute for Clinical Medicine, Sechenov University, Moskva, Russian Federation.
Maria PoltavskayaDepartment of Cardiology, Functional and Ultrasound Diagnostics of N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute for Clinical Medicine, Sechenov University, Moskva, Russian Federation.
Dmitry VychuzhaninClinic for Surgery, Sechenov University, Moskva, Russian Federation.
Philippe KopylovResearch Center "Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare"; Department of Cardiology, Functional and Ultrasound Diagnostics of N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute for Clinical Medicine, Sechenov University, Moskva, Russian Federation.
Hugo SanerClinic for Cardiology, Sechenov University, Moskva, Russian Federation hugo.saner@med.unibe.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-8025-7433
Denis AndreevClinic for Cardiology, Sechenov University, Moskva, Russian Federation.
Sechenov University · RUUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has shown to be useful for preoperative risk stratification in various types of intra-abdominal and thoracic surgery. However, data about the predictive value of CPET for cardiovascular outcome after gastric or oesophageal cancer surgery are inconclusive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of CPET parameters for the prediction of cardiovascular complications in patients with this type of surgery.

methodsThis is a prospective single-centre interventional cohort study including 200 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for oesophageal and/or gastric cancer. Symptom-limited CPET was performed preoperatively to evaluate the potential of various test-derived parameters including anaerobic threshold (AT) to predict cardiovascular complications within 30 days after surgery.

results200 patients (mean age 68±14.2 years) met inclusion and exclusion criteria: oesophageal surgery 54 pts, gastric surgery 132 pts and combined oesophageal/gastric surgery 14 pts. 41/200 pts (20.5%) experienced cardiovascular complications during and within 30 days after surgery including 4 non-fatal myocardial infarctions (2%), 1 stroke (0.5%); 6 dead from cardiovascular causes (3%) and less serious complications in 30 patients (15%) including angina attacks and antiarrhythmic therapy for ventricular arrhythmias or for atrial fibrillation/flutter. Results from preoperative CPET indicate that an AT level below 11 mL/kg/min was highly predictive for any cardiovascular complication (p=0.02, OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.78 to 22.47). An AT level <9.5 had the best predictive accuracy for major perioperative cardiac complications (sensitivity 93%, specificity 68%, positive predicative value 75%, negative predicative value 98.8%).

conclusionCPET is a useful perioperative risk assessment tool for patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal and gastric cancer, which carries a particularly high risk for cardiovascular complications. An AT <9.5 mL/kg/min turned out to be the most reliable predictor for major cardiovascular complications.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesEsophageal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesExercise TestHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsAcute Coronary SyndromeDelivery of Health CareGeneral SurgeryHealth CareMyocardial InfarctionOutcome Assessment

Identifiers

PMID35840177
PMCPMC9295652
OpenAlexW4285501391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.