Evidence Hub

Prognostic value of the ARISCAT score for postoperative pneumonia in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

Peng Zhang, Yun-Yun Chen, Zhi-Yun Xu, Tingting Qin, Yueqin Yang, Changying Liu, Jian-Qiang Zhao, H. Xia

European Journal of Medical Research, 2025

366 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Postoperative pneumonia remains one of the most common and serious complications after esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, significantly impairing recovery and survival outcomes. Accurate preoperative risk stratification is critical, yet no widely validated scoring system currently exists for ESCC-specific surgical cohorts. The ARISCAT score, a preoperative risk index developed to estimate pulmonary complication risk in general surgery, has not been previously assessed in ESCC patients. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the ARISCAT score and its integration with other perioperative indicators for predicting postoperative pneumonia. This retrospective cohort study included 366 patients with histologically confirmed resectable ESCC who underwent curative thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy at a high-volume thoracic surgery center between January 2019 and December 2022. The ARISCAT score and other clinical parameters, including tumor length, length of hospital stay, PNI, and LMR, were collected preoperatively. Postoperative pneumonia was diagnosed based on radiologic, clinical, and laboratory criteria within 30 days after surgery. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of pneumonia. Restricted cubic spline modeling was used to assess non-linear associations. Postoperative pneumonia occurred in 99 of 366 patients (27.0%). Patients with pneumonia had significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 366 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free