Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score (D-FRS): Development and International Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop 2 distinct preoperative and intraoperative risk scores to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) to improve preventive and mitigation strategies, respectively. BACKGROUND: POPF remains the most common complication after DP. Despite several known risk factors, an adequate risk model has not been developed yet. METHODS: Two prediction risk scores were designed using data of patients undergoing DP in 2 Italian centers (2014-2016) utilizing multivariable logistic regression. The preoperative score (calculated before surgery) aims to facilitate preventive strategies and the intraoperative score (calculated at the end of surgery) aims to facilitate mitigation strategies. Internal validation was achieved using bootstrapping. These data were pooled with data from 5 centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2007-2016) to assess discrimination and calibration in an internal-external validation procedure. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after DP were included, of whom 291 (22%) developed POPF. The preoperative distal fistula risk score (preoperative D-FRS) included 2 variables: pancreatic neck thickness [odds ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.17 per mm increase] and pancreatic duct diameter (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.32-1.65 per mm increase). The model performed well with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76) upon internal-external validation. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (<10%), intermediate risk (10%-25%), and high risk (>25%) for POPF with 238 (18%), 684 (51%), and 414 (31%) patients, respectively. The intraoperative risk score (intraoperative D-FRS) added body mass index, pancreatic texture, and operative time as variables with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative and the intraoperative D-FRS are the first validated risk scores for POPF after DP and are readily available at: http://www.pancreascalculator.com . The 3 distinct risk groups allow for personalized treatment and benchmarking.

Pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy: a worldwide survey among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this survey was to assess practices regarding pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy on a global basis. METHODS: This survey study among surgeons from eight (inter)national scientific societies was performed according to the CHERRIES guideline. RESULTS: Overall, 236 surgeons completed the survey. ERAS protocols are used by 61% of surgeons and respectively 82%, 93%, 57% believed there is a relationship between pain management, fluid therapy, and thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes. Epidural analgesia (50%) was most popular followed by intravenous morphine (24%). A restrictive fluid therapy was used by 58% of surgeons. Chemical thromboprophylaxis was used by 88% of surgeons. Variations were observed between continents, most interesting being the choice for analgesic technique (transversus abdominis plane block was popular in North America), restrictive fluid therapy (little use in Asia and Oceania) and duration of chemical thromboprophylaxis (large variation). CONCLUSION: The results of this international survey showed that only 61% of surgeons practice ERAS protocols. Although the majority of surgeons presume a relationship between pain management, fluid therapy and thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes, variations in practices were observed. Additional studies are needed to further optimize, standardize and implement ERAS protocols after pancreatic surgery.

Incidence and impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported a higher rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy. It is unknown whether the clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is comparable with that after open distal pancreatectomy. We aimed to compare not only the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but more importantly, also its clinical impact. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial investigating a possible beneficial impact of a fibrin patch on the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C) after distal pancreatectomy. Primary outcomes of the current analysis are the incidence and clinical impact of postoperative pancreatic fistula after both minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS: From October 2010 to August 2017, 252 patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were randomized, and data of 247 patients were available for analysis: 87 minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and 160 open distal pancreatectomies. The postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was significantly higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy (28.7% vs 16.9%, P = .029). More patients were discharged with an abdominal surgical drain after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy compared to open distal pancreatectomy (30/87, 34.5% vs 26/160, 16.5%, P = .001). In patients with postoperative pancreatic fistula, additional percutaneous catheter drainage procedures were performed less often (52% vs 84.6%, P = .012), with fewer drainage procedures (median [range], 2 [1-4] vs 2, [1-7], P = .014) after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy was higher than that after open distal pancreatectomy, whereas the clinical impact was less.

Goal-directed fluid therapy vs. low central venous pressure during major open liver resections (GALILEO): a surgeon- and patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low central venous pressure (low-CVP) is the clinical standard for fluid therapy during major liver surgery. Although goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has been associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in major abdominal surgery, concerns remain on blood loss when applying GDFT in liver surgery. This randomized trial compared outcomes of low-CVP and GDFT during major liver resections. METHODS: In this surgeon- and patient-blinded RCT, patients undergoing major open liver resections (≥3 segments) were randomized between low-CVP (n = 20) or GDFT (n = 20). Primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes included the quality of the surgical field (VAS scale 0 (worst)-100 (best)) and major morbidity (≥grade 3 Clavien-Dindo). RESULTS: During surgery, CVP was 3 ± 2 mmHg in the low-CVP group vs. 7 ± 3 mmHg in the GDFT group (P < 0.001). Blood loss (1425 vs. 1275 mL; P = 0.640) and the rate of major morbidity (40% vs. 50%, P = 0.751), did not differ between low-CVP and GDFT, respectively. The quality of the surgical field was comparable between groups (low-CVP 83% vs. GDFT 80%, P = 0.955). CONCLUSION: In major open liver resections, GDFT was not associated with differences in intraoperative blood loss, major morbidity or quality of the surgical field, compared to low-CVP. Larger RCTs are needed to confirm this finding. Registration number: NTR5821 (www.trialregister.nl).

Updated Alternative Fistula Risk Score (ua-FRS) to Include Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Pan-European Validation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to validate and optimize the alternative Fistula Risk Score (a-FRS) for patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in a large pan-European cohort. BACKGROUND: MIPD may be associated with an increased risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The a-FRS could allow for risk-adjusted comparisons in research and improve preventive strategies for high-risk patients. The a-FRS, however, has not yet been validated specifically for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD. METHODS: A validation study was performed in a pan-European cohort of 952 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD (543 laparoscopic, 258 robot-assisted, 151 hybrid) in 26 centers from 7 countries between 2007 and 2017. The primary outcome was POPF (International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C). Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC; discrimination) and calibration plots. Validation included univariable screening for clinical variables that could improve performance. RESULTS: Overall, 202 of 952 patients (21%) developed POPF after MIPD. Before adjustment, the original a-FRS performed moderately (AUC 0.68) and calibration was inadequate with systematic underestimation of the POPF risk. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy (odds ratio 4.6, 95 confidence interval [CI] 2.8-7.6) and male sex (odds ratio 1.9, 95 CI 1.4-2.7) were identified as important risk factors for POPF in MIPD. The updated a-FRS, consisting of body mass index, pancreatic texture, duct size, and male sex, showed good discrimination (AUC 0.75, 95 CI 0.71-0.79) and adequate calibration. Performance was adequate for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The updated a-FRS (www.pancreascalculator.com) now includes male sex as a risk factor and is validated for both MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy. The increased risk of POPF in laparoscopic MIPD was associated with single-row pancreatojejunostomy, which should therefore be discouraged.

External validation and comparison of the original, alternative and updated-alternative fistula risk scores for the prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Many postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) predictions models were developed and validated in western populations. Direct use of these models in the large Indian/Asian population, however, requires proper validation. OBJECTIVE: To validate the original, alternative and updated alternative fistula risk score (FRS) models. METHODS: A validation study was performed in consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) from January 2011 to March 2018. The area under the receiver operating curve (ROC) and calibration plots were used to assess the performance of original-FRS (o-FRS), alternative FRS (a-FRS) and updated alternative FRS (ua-FRS) models. RESULTS: This cohort consisted of 825 patients of which 66% were males with a median age of 55 years and mean body mass index of 22.6. The majority of tumors (61.8%) were of periampullary origin. Clinically relevant POPF was observed in 16.8% patients. Area under curve (AUC) of ROC for the o-FRS was 0.65, 0.69 for a-FRS and 0.70 for ua-FRS, respectively (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In this large Indian cohort of predominantly periampullary tumors, the ua-FRS performed better than the a-FRS and o-FRS, although differences were small. Since the AUC value of the ua-FRS is at the accepted threshold there might be room for improvement for a FRS.

Alternative Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): Design and International External Validation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop an alternative fistula risk score (a-FRS) for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy, without blood loss as a predictor. BACKGROUND: Blood loss, one of the predictors of the original-FRS, was not a significant factor during 2 recent external validations. METHODS: The a-FRS was developed in 2 databases: the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centers) and the University Hospital Southampton NHS. Primary outcome was grade B/C POPF according to the 2005 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. The score was externally validated in 2 independent databases (University Hospital of Verona and University Hospital of Pennsylvania), using both 2005 and 2016 ISGPS definitions. The a-FRS was also compared with the original-FRS. RESULTS: For model design, 1924 patients were included of whom 12% developed POPF. Three predictors were strongly associated with POPF: soft pancreatic texture [odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.80-3.69], small pancreatic duct diameter (per mm increase, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61-0.76), and high body mass index (BMI) (per kg/m increase, OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). Discrimination was adequate with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78) after internal validation, and 0.78 (0.74-0.82) after external validation. The predictive capacity of a-FRS was comparable with the original-FRS, both for the 2005 definition (AUC 0.78 vs 0.75, P = 0.03), and 2016 definition (AUC 0.72 vs 0.70, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The a-FRS predicts POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy based on 3 easily available variables (pancreatic texture, duct diameter, BMI) without blood loss and pathology, and was successfully validated for both the 2005 and 2016 POPF definition. The online calculator is available at www.pancreascalculator.com.

Preperitoneal or Subcutaneous Wound Catheters as Alternative for Epidural Analgesia in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the location of wound catheters (ie, preperitoneal vs. subcutaneous) impacts outcomes, when compared with alternatives such as epidural analgesia. BACKGROUND: Continuous wound infiltration is an alternative for epidural analgesia in abdominal surgery but studies have shown conflicting results. This difference could be explained by different efficacy of preperitoneal versus subcutaneous placement of the infiltrative catheters. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines until April 3, 2017. Primary endpoints were pain scores in rest and when moving at 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included postoperative pain scores at 12 and 48 hours, functional recovery, pain treatment-related complications, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: After screening 2283 studies, 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2059 patients were included. Methodological quality of these RCTs ranged from moderate to high. In the one direct comparison (60 patients), preperitoneal catheters led to better pain control than subcutaneous catheters. Superiority of preperitoneal compared with subcutaneous placement was confirmed indirectly in placebo-controlled RCTs. Preperitoneal wound catheters provided comparable pain control compared with active controls, such as epidural analgesia. Recovery parameters, opioid consumption, incidence of hypotension, and patient satisfaction seemed to be in favor of preperitoneal wound catheters compared with active alternatives, as well as placebo. CONCLUSION: Continuous wound infiltration with preperitoneal wound catheters is an effective pain modality in abdominal surgery. Pain control is as effective as epidural analgesia, but could be favored based upon recovery parameters and patient satisfaction.

Fluid and pain management in liver surgery (MILESTONE): A worldwide study among surgeons and anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Fluid and pain management during liver surgery (eg, low central venous pressure) is a classic topic of controversy between anesthesiologists and surgeons. Little is known about practices worldwide. The aim of this study was to assess perioperative practices in liver surgery among and between surgeons and anesthesiologists worldwide that could guide the design of future international studies. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to 22 societies, including 4 international hepatopancreatobiliary societies, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and 17 other (inter-)national societies. RESULTS: A total of 913 participants (495 surgeons and 418 anesthesiologists) from 66 countries were surveyed. A large heterogeneity in fluid management practices was identified, with 66% using low central venous pressure, 22% goal-directed fluid therapy, and 6% normovolemia. In addition, large heterogeneity was found regarding pain management practices, with 49% using epidural analgesia, 25% patient-controlled analgesia with opioids, and 12% regional techniques. Most participants assume that there is a relation between perioperative pain management and morbidity and mortality (78% of surgeons vs 89% of anesthesiologists; P < .001). Both surgeons and anesthesiologists have the highest expectations for minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery pathways for improving outcomes in liver surgery. No clear differences between continents were found. CONCLUSION: Worldwide there is a large heterogeneity in fluid and pain management practices in liver surgery. This survey identified several areas of interest for future international studies aiming to improve outcomes in liver surgery.

New-onset diabetes after pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy may lead to new-onset diabetes mellitus, also known as type 3c diabetes, but the exact risk of this complication is unknown. The aim of this review was to assess the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Library for English articles published from March 1993 until March 2017 (PROSPERO registry number: CRD42016039784). Studies reporting on the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus after pancreatoduodenectomy were included. For meta-analysis, studies were pooled using the random-effects model. All studies were appraised according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: After screening 1,523 studies, 22 studies involving 1,121 patients were eligible. The mean weighted overall proportion of new-onset diabetes mellitus after pancreatoduodenectomy was 16% (95% confidence interval, 12%-20%). We found no significant difference in risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus when pancreatoduodenectomy was performed for nonmalignant disease after excluding patients with chronic pancreatitis (19% risk; 95% confidence interval, 7%-43%; 6 studies) or for malignant disease (22% risk; 95% confidence interval, 14%-32%; 11 studies), P = .71. Among all patients, 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-10%) developed insulin-dependent new-onset diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified a clinically relevant risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus after pancreatoduodenectomy of which patients should be informed preoperatively.

Surgeons' assessment versus risk models for predicting complications of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery (HPB-RISC): a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies advise the use of risk models when counseling patients for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery, but studies comparing these models to the surgeons' assessment are lacking. The aim of this study was to assess whether risk prediction models outperform surgeons' assessment for the risk of complications in HPB surgery. METHODS: This prospective study included adult patients scheduled for HPB surgery in three centers in the UK and the Netherlands. Primary outcome was the rate of postoperative major complications. Surgeons assessed the risk prior to surgery while blinded for the formal risk scores. Risk prediction models were retrieved via a systematic review and risk scores were calculated. For each model, discrimination and calibration were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 349 patients were included. The rate of major complications was 27% and in-hospital mortality 3%. Surgeons' assessment resulted in an AUC of 0.64; 0.71 for liver and 0.56 for pancreas surgery (P = 0.020). The AUCs for nine existing risk prediction models ranged between 0.57 and 0.73 for liver surgery and between 0.51 and 0.57 for pancreas surgery. CONCLUSION: In HPB surgery, existing risk prediction models do not outperform surgeons' assessment. Surgeons' assessment outperforms most risk prediction models for liver surgery although both have a poor predictive performance for pancreas surgery. REGISTRATION INFORMATION: REC reference number (13/SC/0135); IRAS ID (119370). TRIALREGISTER.NL: NTR4649.

Serum levels of bupivacaine after pre-peritoneal bolus vs. epidural bolus injection for analgesia in abdominal surgery: A safety study within a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuous wound infiltration (CWI) has become increasingly popular in recent years as an alternative to epidural analgesia. As catheters are not placed until the end of surgery, more intraoperative opioid analgesics might be needed. We, therefore, added a single pre-peritoneal bolus of bupivacaine at the start of laparotomy, similar to the bolus given with epidural analgesia. METHODS: This was a comparative study within a randomized controlled trial (NTR4948). Patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery received either a pre-peritoneal bolus of 30ml bupivacaine 0.25%, or an epidural bolus of 10ml bupivacaine 0.25% at the start of laparotomy. In a subgroup of patients, we sampled blood and determined bupivacaine serum levels 20, 40, 60 and 80 minutes after bolus injection. We assumed toxicity of bupivacaine to be >1000 ng/ml. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients participated in this sub-study. All plasma levels measured as well as the upper limit of the predicted 99% confidence intervals per time point were well below the toxicity limit. In a mixed linear-effect model both groups did not differ statistically significant (p = 0.131). The intra-operative use of opioids was higher with CWI as compared to epidural (86 (SD 73) µg sufentanil vs. 50 (SD 32). CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study, the pre-peritoneal bolus using bupivacaine resulted in serum bupivacaine concentrations well below the commonly accepted toxic threshold. With CWI more additional analgesics are needed intraoperatively as compared to epidural analgesia, although this is compensated by a reduction in use of vasopressors with CWI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4948.

Continuous wound infiltration versus epidural analgesia after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery (POP-UP): a randomised controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is the international standard for pain treatment in abdominal surgery. Although some studies have advocated continuous wound infiltration with local anaesthetics, robust evidence is lacking, especially on patient-reported outcome measures. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of continuous wound infiltration in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. METHODS: In this randomised controlled, open label, non-inferiority trial (POP-UP), we enrolled adult patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery by subcostal or midline laparotomy in two Dutch hospitals. Patients were centrally randomised (1:1) to receive either pain treatment with continuous wound infiltration using bupivacaine plus patient-controlled analgesia with morphine or to receive (patient-controlled) epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and sufentanil. All patients were treated within an enhanced recovery setting. Randomisation was stratified by centre and type of incision. The primary outcome was the mean Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS) from day 1-5, a validated composite endpoint of pain scores, opioid side-effects, and patient satisfaction (range 0 [best] to 28 [worst]). Analysis was per-protocol. The non-inferiority limit of the mean difference was + 3·0. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, number NTR4948. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20, 2015, and Sept 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 105 eligible patients: 53 to receive continuous wound infiltration and 52 to receive epidural analgesia. One patient in the continuous wound infiltration group discontinued treatment, as did five in the epidural analgesia group; of these five patients, preoperative placement failed in three (these patients were treated with continuous wound infiltration instead), one patient refused an epidural, and data for the primary endpoint was lost for one. Thus, 55 patients were included in the continuous wound infiltration group and 47 in the epidural analgesia group for the per-protocol analyses. Mean OBAS was 3·8 (SD 2·4) in the continuous wound infiltration group versus 4·4 (2·2) in the epidural group (mean difference -0·62, 95% CI -1·54 to 0·30). Because the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI did not exceed +3·0, non-inferiority was shown. Four (7%) patients in the continuous wound infiltration group and five (11%) of those in the epidural group had an adverse event. One patient in the continuous wound infiltration group had a serious adverse event (temporary hypotension and arrhythmia after bolus injection); no serious adverse events were noted in the epidural group. INTERPRETATION: These data suggest that continuous wound infiltration is non-inferior to epidural analgesia in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery within an enhanced recovery setting. Further large-scale trials are required to make a definitive assessment of non-inferiority. FUNDING: Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Continuous wound infiltration or epidural analgesia for pain prevention after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery within an enhanced recovery program (POP-UP trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain prevention is essential for the recovery of surgical patients. Continuous (thoracic) epidural analgesia (CEA) is routinely practiced for major abdominal surgery, but evidence is conflicting on its benefits in this setting. Potential disadvantages of epidural analgesia are a) perioperative hypotension, frequently requiring additional intravenous fluid boluses or prolonged use of vasopressors; b) relatively high failure rates, with periods of inadequate analgesia; and c) the risk of rare but serious, at times persistent, neurologic complications (hematoma and abscess). In recent years, continuous (subfascial) wound infiltration (CWI) plus patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been suggested as a safe and reliable alternative, which does not have the previously mentioned disadvantages, but evidence from multicenter trials targeting a specific surgical population is lacking. We hypothesize that CWI+PCA is equally as effective as CEA, without the mentioned disadvantages. METHODS/DESIGN: POP-UP is a randomized controlled noninferiority multicenter trial, recruiting adult patients scheduled for elective hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery via laparotomy in an enhanced recovery setting. A total of 102 patients are being randomly allocated to CWI+PCA or (P)CEA. Our primary endpoint is the Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS), a composite endpoint of pain intensity, opioid-related adverse effects and patient satisfaction, during postoperative days 1 to 5. Secondary endpoints include length of the hospital stay, number of patients with severe pain, and the use of rescue medication. DISCUSSION: POP-UP is a pragmatic trial that will provide evidence of whether CWI+PCA is noninferior as compared to (P)CEA after elective hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery via laparotomy in an enhanced recovery setting. If this hypothesis is confirmed, this finding could contribute to more widespread implementation of this technique, especially when the described disadvantages of epidural analgesia are less often observed with CWI+PCA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4948 (registry date 2 January 2015).