Distinct risk factors for early and late blood transfusion following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) has defined two periods of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, early (<24 h) and late (>24 h). A previously published Blood Usage Risk Score (BURS) aimed to predict early and late blood transfusion. The primary aim of this study was to define risk factors for early and late blood transfusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Secondary aims were to assess the predictive accuracy of the BURS. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, multivariable analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for both early and late blood transfusion. The predictive ability of the BURS was then assessed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Among 628 patients, 99 (15.8%) and 144 (22.9%) received early and late blood transfusion, respectively. Risk factors for blood transfusion differed between early and late periods. Preoperative anemia and venous resection were associated with early blood transfusion whilst Whipple's resection (as opposed to pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy), lack of biliary stent and a narrow pancreatic duct were predictors of late blood transfusion. The BURS was significantly predictive of early blood transfusion, albeit with a modest degree of accuracy (AUROC: 0.700, P < 0.001), but not of late blood transfusion (AUROC: 0.525, P = 0.360). Late blood transfusion was independently associated with increasing severity of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR: 1.85, 3.18 and 9.97 for biochemical, types B and C POPF, respectively, relative to no POPF). CONCLUSIONS: Two largely different sets of variables are related to early and late blood transfusion following pancreaticoduodenectomy. The BURS was significantly associated with early, albeit with modest predictive accuracy, but not late blood transfusion. An understanding of POPF risk allows assessment of the need for late blood transfusion.

Cost analysis of open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a cost analysis comparing the cost of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open RC (ORC) in a UK tertiary referral centre and to identify the key cost drivers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time (OT), transfusion rate, and volume and complication rate were obtained from a prospectively updated institutional database for patients undergoing RARC or ORC. A cost decision tree model was created. Sensitivity analysis was performed to find key drivers of overall cost and to find breakeven points with ORC. Monte Carlo analysis was performed to quantify the variability in the dataset. RESULTS: One RARC procedure costs £12 449.87, or £12 106.12 if the robot was donated via charitable funds. In comparison, one ORC procedure costs £10 474.54. RARC is 18.9% more expensive than ORC. The key cost drivers were OT, LOS, and the number of cases performed per annum. CONCLUSION: High ongoing equipment costs remain a large barrier to the cost of RARC falling. However, minimal improvements in patient quality of life would be required to offset this difference.