ArticleJournal of the American College of Surgeons2026
Intraoperative Hemodynamic Management During Esophagectomy and Implications for Postoperative Care.
Article in Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative hemodynamic strategies during esophagectomy: implications for postoperative outcomes and perioperative care.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Association of perioperative patient characteristics, intraoperative fluid management, and vasopressors with anastomotic leakage after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy-a single center retrospective cohort.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEsophagectomy remains a high-morbidity operation despite advances in perioperative care. The relationship between intraoperative hemodynamic management and postoperative complications remains undefined. This study explores real-time hemodynamic management patterns and postoperative complications after esophagectomy. STUDY
designUsing a paired anesthesia and surgical registry, patients undergoing elective esophagectomy at a single high-volume institution between 2015 and 2023 were analyzed. Patients were categorized by fluid-restrictive or fluid-liberal intraoperative volume strategies and vasopressor-low or vasopressor-high strategies based on cumulative dose required during the case. Additionally, anesthesiologists were characterized similarly according to their relative average fluid and vasopressor administrations. Adjusted rates of select and composite postoperative complications were compared by fluid and vasopressor strategies using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOf 639 patients, 296 (46.3%) received a fluid-restrictive strategy and 343 (53.7%) received a fluid-liberal strategy. Three hundred nineteen patients (49.9%) occupied the vasopressor-low category, whereas 320 (50.1%) were in the vasopressor-high category. Across the cohort, the unadjusted leak rate was 23.2%, pneumonia 10.6%, and atrial fibrillation 32.3%. There were no significant differences in adjusted rates of complications between fluid and vasopressor groups. Patients managed by fluid-liberal anesthesiologists had higher adjusted rates of atrial fibrillation (19.6% vs 27.2%, odds ratio 1.60 [1.00 to 2.57], p = 0.049).
conclusionsHemodynamic management during esophagectomy is variable. Intraoperative volume balance or vasopressor administration may not be associated with differential complication rates; however, further analysis is warranted. This may inform postoperative management by identifying at-risk patients for complications, thereby individualizing treatment decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.