Enhancing the cost-effectiveness of surgical care in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and cost meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways (CP) based on Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) are increasingly utilised in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). This systematic review aimed to compare the impact of CPs versus conventional care (CC) on peri-PD costs. METHODS: A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken. Quality assessment was performed using the CHEERS checklist. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as part of the cost-effectiveness analysis. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models and Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to assess the precision and conclusiveness of the results. RESULTS: 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria were included for full qualitative synthesis. All studies reported a reduction in overall costs, length of stay and overall complication rates for CPs when compared to CC. Meta-analysis performed on nine studies demonstrated significantly reduced costs in the CP group, with considerable heterogeneity (Pooled mean difference of $ 4.28 × 103, p < 0.01, I2 = 95%). Cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to complications demonstrated dominance of CPs over CC in being cheaper as well as more effective. TSA supported the cost benefit of enhanced-recovery CPs, displaying minimal type 1 error. CONCLUSION: Peri-PD CPs result in significant cost-reduction in comparison to CC.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Cost Analysis of Pancreaticoduodenectomy at a High-Volume Robotic Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery Program.

BACKGROUND: The robotic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy is thought by many to be associated with increased financial burden for hospitals. We undertook this study to analyze and compare the cost of "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy with that associated with the application of the robotic surgical system to pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hepatobiliary program. STUDY DESIGN: With IRB approval, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at our institution, from August 2012 to November 2019, were prospectively followed. Cost, including total, variable, fixed-direct, fixed-indirect, and profitability for robotic and "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy were analyzed and compared. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: There were 386 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 205 patients underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 181 underwent "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. Costs are presented as mean ± SD. Overall, the cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was $31,389 ($36,611 ± $20,545.40) vs $23,132 ($31,323 ± $28,885.50) for "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy (p = 0.04); total variable cost was $20,355 ($22,747 ± $11,127.60) vs $11,680 ($16,032 ± $14,817.20) (p = 0.01), total fixed direct cost was $1,999 ($2,330 ± $1,363.10) vs $2,073 ($2,983 ± $3,209.00) (p = 0.01), and total indirect cost was $7,217 ($9,354 ± $6,802.40) vs $6,802 ($9,505 ± $9,307.20) (p = 0.86), for robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Since 2016, profitability was achieved in 29% of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of stay. Cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was greater across all categories, except for total indirect cost, than "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. For our institution, profitability was accomplished in less than one-third of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The role of the robotic platform for pancreaticoduodenectomy needs to be discussed among all stakeholders.

Forecasting surgical costs: Towards informed financial consent and financial risk reduction.

BACKGROUND: Health care expenditure is increasing around the world and surgery is a major cause of financial hardship to patients and their families. Using pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), one of the most complex, morbid and costly operation as an example, this study aimed to identify the cost drivers of surgery, estimate relative contribution of these drivers, and derive and validate a cohort-specific cost forecasting tool. METHODS: Data on the costs of 1406 patients undergoing PD in three tertiary hospitals in India, Italy and the United States were analysed. Cost drivers were identified and cost models developed using a 4-stage process. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in overall cost of PD between the 3 cohorts. The cost drivers common to the 3 cohorts included duration of hospital stay and the outcome of death (Clavien-Dindo 5). Significant cohort-specific cost drivers included co-morbidities, operating theatre utilisation times and operative blood loss, development of pancreatectomy-specific complications (POPF, DGE, PPH), and need for interventional radiology to manage complications. Based on this, a cost forecasting tool was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Drivers of costs for a surgical procedure (e.g. PD) are different between hospitals. Developing cost models/nomograms to predict the expected cost of surgery and perioperative care will not be applicable between hospitals. However, the approach could be used to develop context-specific data that will provide patients (at the time of the informed financial consent) and funding agencies with a more realistic cost estimate for a given operation. The developed cost forecasting tool warrants future validation.

Do high-volume centers mitigate complication risk and reduce costs associated with performing pancreaticoduodenectomy in ethnic minorities?

INTRODUCTION: Few studies examine the impact of ethnicity on post-operative outcomes and costs associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: Multivariable regression (MVR) was used to perform a risk-adjusted comparison of patients within the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Databases undergoing PD. RESULTS: 4742 patients underwent PD. 3871 (81%) were white, 456 (10%) black, and 415 (9%) Hispanic. Black and Hispanics were less likely than whites to undergo PD in high volume centers. Blacks and Hispanics had a higher risk of select post-operative complications, prolonged lengths of stay, and high-cost outliers. When PDs done in high volume centers were evaluated separately, blacks and Hispanics had a lower adjusted-risk of any serious morbidity (OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.33, 0.57], OR 0.56, 95% CI [0.43, 0.73]) than whites but costs for PD among the three ethnic groups were statistically identical. CONCLUSION: Racial and ethnic minorities undergoing PD are less likely to receive care at high-volume centers, are at an increased risk of post-operative morbidity, and have higher odds of being high-cost outliers than NHW.

Readmission and Resource Use After Robotic-Assisted versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: 2010-2017.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned rehospitalization is considered an adverse quality of care indicator. Minimally invasive operations carry the potential to reduce resource use while enhancing recovery. Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been used to improve outcomes of its morbid open counterpart. We sought to identify factors associated with readmission between RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the 2010-17 National Readmissions Database to identify adults who underwent RAPD or OPD. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission. Secondary outcomes included readmission diagnosis: index, readmission, and total (index + readmission) length of stay, costs, and mortality. RESULTS: Of an estimated 84,036 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, 96.9% survived index hospitalization. Frequency of both RAPD and OPD increased during the study period with similar mortality (2.5% versus 3.2%, P = 0.46). Compared with OPD, RAPD was not an independent predictor of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.0, P = 0.98). Disposition with home health care (AOR: 1.1, P < 0.001) or to a skilled nursing facility (AOR: 1.5, P < 0.001) was significantly associated with increased 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission after pancreaticoduodenectomy is common, regardless of surgical approach. Although RAPD saves in-patient days on index admission, readmission rates and length of stay are similar between the two modalities. Neither RAPD nor OPD is a risk factor for readmission, highlighting the complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy, with complications that may result from factors independent of the operative approach.

Analysis of 102 Fully Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomies: Clinical and Financial Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The value of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) remains undefined. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare and assess clinical outcomes and financial variables of patients undergoing RPD versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) at a single high-volume center. METHODS: The study design is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive PD patients from 2013 to 2019. Clinical variables and total hospital charges were evaluated as an unadjusted and adjusted intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients (54 OPD, 102 RPD) were identified. In the RPD group, patients were significantly older (P = 0.0304) and had shorter length of stay (mean, 7 vs 11.8 days; P < 0.0001) and longer operative times (mean, 352.7 vs 211.5 minutes; P < 0.0001) compared with OPD. There was no significant difference in 90-day readmissions, bleeding, or complications between OPD and RPD. Adjusted charge analyses show no difference in total charges (P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe, feasible, and valid alternative to OPD. Because of comparable results within each group, randomized trials may be indicated. High-volume RPD centers should collaborate to better understand the differences and advantages over laparoscopic or OPD.

Summary perioperative risk metrics within the electronic medical record predict patient-level cost variation in pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Automated data extraction from the electronic medical record is fast, scalable, and inexpensive compared with manual abstraction. However, concerns regarding data quality and control for underlying patient variation when performing retrospective analyses exist. This study assesses the ability of summary electronic medical record metrics to control for patient-level variation in cost outcomes in pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: Patients that underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2014 to 2018 at a single institution were identified within the electronic medical record and linked with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Variables in both data sets were compared using interrater reliability. Logistic and linear regression modelling of complications and costs were performed using combinations of comorbidities/summary metrics. Models were compared using the adjusted R2 and Akaike information criterion. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients populated the final data set. A total of 31 (26.5%) patients experienced a complication identified by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. The median direct variable cost for the encounter was US$14,314. Agreement between variables present in the electronic medical record and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was excellent. Stepwise linear regression models of costs, using only electronic medical record-extractable variables, were non-inferior to those created with manually abstracted individual comorbidities (R2 = 0.67 vs 0.30, Akaike information criterion 2,095 vs 2,216). Model performance statistics were minimally impacted by the addition of comorbidities to models containing electronic medical record summary metrics (R2 = 0.67 vs 0.70, Akaike information criterion 2,095 vs 2,088). CONCLUSION: Summary electronic medical record perioperative risk metrics predict patient-level cost variation as effectively as individual comorbidities in the pancreaticoduodenectomy population. Automated electronic medical record data extraction can expand the patient population available for retrospective analysis without the associated increase in human and fiscal resources that manual data abstraction requires.

Health-Care Workers' Perception of Reimbursement for Complex Surgical Oncology Procedures.

Perception of physician reimbursement for surgical procedures is not well studied. The few existing studies illustrate that patients believe compensation to be higher than in reality. These studies focus on patient perceptions and have not assessed health-care workers' views. Our study examined health-care workers' perception of reimbursement for complex surgical oncology procedures. An anonymous online survey was distributed to employees at our cancer center with descriptions and illustrations of three oncology procedures-hepatectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Participants estimated the Medicare fee and gave their perceived value of each procedure. Participants recorded their perception of surgeon compensation overall, both before and after revealing the Medicare fee schedule. Most of the 113 participants were physicians (33.6%) and nurses (28.3%). When blinded to the Medicare fee schedules, most felt that reimbursements were too low for all procedures (60-64%) and that surgeons were overall undercompensated (57%). Value predictions for each procedure were discordant from actual Medicare fee schedules, with overestimates up to 374 per cent. After revealing the Medicare fee schedules, 55 per cent of respondents felt that surgeons were undercompensated. Even among health-care workers, a large discrepancy exists between perceived and actual reimbursement. Revealing actual reimbursements did not alter perception on overall surgeon compensation.

Laparoscopic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study in elderly people.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) is safe and feasible for elderly patients. From December 2015 to January 2019, 142 LPD surgeries and 93 OPD surgeries were performed by the same surgeon in the third affiliated hospital of Soochow University. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we retrospectively collected the date of three defined groups: LPD aged < 70 years (group I, 84 patients), LPD aged ≥ 70 years (group II, 56 patients) and OPD aged ≥ 70 years (group III, 28 patients). Baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes of group I and group II, group II and group III were compared. Totally, 168 patients were included in this study; 100 cases were men; 68 cases were women; mean age was 67.9 ± 9.5 years. LPD does not perform as well in elderly as it does in non-elderly patients in terms of intraoperative blood loss (300.0 (200.0-500.0) ml vs. 200.0 (100.0-300.0) ml, p = 0.003), proportion of intraoperative transfusion (17.9% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.026) and time to oral intake (5.0 (4.0-7.0) day vs. 5.0 (3.0-6.0) day, p = 0.036). Operative time, conversion rate, postoperative stay, and proportion of reoperation, Clavien-Dindo classification, 30-day readmission and 90-day mortality were similar in two groups. In elderly patients, when compared with OPD, LPD had the advantage of shorter time to start oral intake (5.0 (4.0-7.0) day vs. 7.0 (5.0-11.3) day, p = 0.005) but the disadvantage of longer operative time (380.0 (306.3-447.5) min vs. 292.5 (255.0-342.5) min, p < 0.001) and higher hospitalization cost (12447.3 (10,189.7-15,340.0) euros vs. 7251.9 (8994.0-11,717.4) euros, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative stay, and proportion of reoperation, Clavien-Dindo classification, 30-day readmission and 90-day mortality. LPD is safe and feasible for elderly people, but we need to consider its high cost and long operative time over OPD.

Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery Improves Results: Review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effect of operation volume on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been a subject of research since the 1990s. In several countries around the world, this has led to the centralization of pancreatic surgery. However, controversy persists as to the benefits of centralization and what the optimal operation volume for pancreatic surgery actually is. This review summarizes the data on the effect of centralization on mortality, complications, hospital facilities used, and costs regarding pancreatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic librarian-assisted search was performed in PubMed covering the years from August 1999 to August 2019. All studies comparing results of open pancreatic resections from high- and low-volume centers were included. In total 44, published articles were analyzed. RESULTS: Studies used a variety of different criteria for high-volume and low-volume centers, which hampers the evaluating of the effect of operation volume. However, mortality in high-volume centers is consistently reported to be lower than in low-volume centers. In addition, failure to rescue critically ill patients is more common in low-volume centers. Cost-effectiveness has also been evaluated in the literature. Length of hospital stay in particular has been reported to be shorter in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers. CONCLUSION: The effect of centralization on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been under active research and the beneficial effect of it is associated especially with better short-term prognosis after surgery.

The laparoscopic approach to pancreatoduodenectomy is cost neutral in very high-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the impact of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016. RESULTS: In this database, 488 (10%) patients underwent elective laparoscopic; 4,544 (90%) underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy. On adjusted analysis, the risk of perioperative morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were identical to those for patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic in low (+$10,399, 95% confidence interval [$3,700, $17,098]) and moderate to high (+$4,505, 95% confidence interval [$528, $8,481]) volume centers had greater costs than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers. In very high-volume centers (>127 pancreatoduodenectomies/year), aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were essentially identical to those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers (+$815, 95% confidence interval [-$1,530, $3,160]). CONCLUSION: Rates of morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic are not different than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. At low to moderate and high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is associated with greater aggregate costs of care relative to open pancreatoduodenectomy. At very high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is cost-neutral.

Pancreatic resections are not only safest but also most cost-effective when performed in a high-volume centre: A Finnish register study.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether the treatment costs of pancreatic surgery can be reduced by centralisation. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of hospital volume on the short-term prognosis and costs in a nationwide study. METHODS: The National registry was searched for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in Finland between 2012 and 2014. Patient data was recorded up to ninety days postoperatively and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) calculated. Complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo. A CCI was calculated for each patient. The hospitals were categorized by yearly resection rate: high (≥20, HVC), medium (6-19, MVC) and low (≤5, LVC). Costs were calculated according to the 2012 billing list. RESULTS: The study population comprised 466 patients. Demographics were similar in the HVC, MVC and LVC groups. Mortality was lower in the HVCs than in MVCs and LVCs at 30 days (0.8% vs. 8.8-12.9%; p < 0.01) and at 90 days (1.9% vs. 10.5-16.1%; p < 0.01). Hospital volume and CCI were significant factors for mortality in multivariate analysis. Median costs among all patients were lower in the HVC group than in the MVC/LVC groups (p = 0.019), among Clavien-Dindo class III (0.020), among patients over 75 years (p < 0.001) and among patients who survived over five days (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Thirty- and 90-day mortality is 10 times lower when the patient is operated on in an HVC. The study shows that the median overall costs of surgical treatment are 82-88% of the median costs in lower volume centres.

A Combination of Robotic Approach and ERAS Pathway Optimizes Outcomes and Cost for Pancreatoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway implementation on outcomes, and cost of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. BACKGROUND: ERAS pathways have shown benefit in open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). The impact of ERAS on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive RPD and OPDs in the pre-ERAS (July, 2014-July, 2015) and ERAS (July, 2015-July, 2016) period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine impact of ERAS and operative approach alone, or in combination (pre-ERAS + OPD, pre-ERAS + RPD, ERAS + OPD, ERAS + RPD) on length of hospital stay (LOS) and overall cost. RESULTS: In all, 254 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies (RPD 62%, OPD 38%) were analyzed (median age 67, 47% female). ERAS patients had shorter LOS (6 vs 8 days; P = 0.004) and decreased overall cost (USD 20,362 vs 24,277; P = 0.001) compared with non-ERAS patients, whereas RPD was associated with decreased LOS (7 vs 8 days; P = 0.0001) and similar cost compared with OPD. On multivariable analysis (MVA), RPD was predictive of shorter LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.67, P = 0.002), whereas ERAS was protective against high cost (OR 0.57, CI 0.33-0.97, P = 0.037). On MVA, when combining operative approach with ERAS pathway use, a combined ERAS + RPD approach was associated with reduced LOS and optimal cost compared with other combinations (pre-ERAS + OPD, pre-ERAS + RPD, ERAS + OPD). CONCLUSION: ERAS implementation is independently associated with cost savings for pancreatoduodenectomy. A combination of ERAS and robotic approach synergistically decreases hospital stay and overall cost compared with other strategies.

Interhospital Variability in Quality Outcomes of Pancreatic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of optimal patient outcomes from health care delivery is critical for success amidst current reform. We developed a composite index of quality for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and compared high and low performers nationwide. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 17,220 patients undergoing elective PD between October 2010 and June 2014 using the Vizient database. A quality index score (QIS) was developed from five variables associated with optimal outcomes: postoperative complication rate, length of stay, 30-d readmission rate, mortality rate, and hospital volume. Value was defined as hospital-based QIS divided by mean hospital charges. High-value centers (top quintile) were compared to low-value centers (bottom quintile). RESULTS: The majority of high-value centers (79%) achieved top performer status in 1-2 of five quality categories though only 11% were low performer in at least one category. Conversely, 41% of low-value centers were top performers in at least one category, although rarely more than one (8%); 63% of low-value centers were low performers in two or more categories. There was no significant association between QIS and hospital charges (-570, 95% CI -1308 to 168, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: High-value centers infrequently provided high quality surgical care across all five metrics but instead excelled in a few quality metrics while avoiding low performance in any quality metric. Although low-value centers could achieve excellence in one quality metric, they were frequently low performers in two or more outcomes. Improvements in value of PD can be achieved by a consistent effort across all quality metrics rather than efforts at constraining financial expenditures of health care delivery.

Enhancing Patient Outcomes while Containing Costs after Complex Abdominal Operation: A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Whipple Accelerated Recovery Pathway.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine whether a standardized recovery pathway could reduce post-pancreaticoduodenectomy hospital length of stay to 5 days without increasing complication or readmission rates. STUDY DESIGN: Pancreaticoduodenectomy patients (high-risk patients excluded) were enrolled in an IRB-approved, prospective, randomized controlled trial (NCT02517268) comparing a 5-day Whipple accelerated recovery pathway (WARP) with our traditional 7-day pathway (control). Whipple accelerated recovery pathway interventions included early discharge planning, shortened ICU stay, modified postoperative dietary and drain management algorithm, rigorous physical therapy with in-hospital gym visit, standardized rectal suppository administration, and close telehealth follow-up post discharge. The trial was powered to detect an increase in postoperative day 5 discharge from 10% to 30% (80% power, α = 0.05, 2-sided Fisher's exact test, target accrual: 142 patients). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (37 WARP, 39 control) were randomized from June 2015 to September 2017. A planned interim analysis was conducted at 50% trial accrual resulting in mandatory early stoppage, as the predefined efficacy end point was met. Demographic variables between groups were similar. The WARP significantly increased the number of patients discharged to home by postoperative day 5 compared with controls (75.7% vs 12.8%; p < 0.001) without increasing readmission rates (8.1% vs 10.3%; p = 1.0). Overall complication rates did not differ between groups (29.7% vs 43.6%; p = 0.24), but the WARP significantly reduced the time from operation to adjuvant therapy initiation (51 days vs 66 days; p = 0.005) and hospital cost ($26,563 vs $31,845; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The WARP can safely reduce hospital length of stay, time to adjuvant therapy, and cost in selected pancreaticoduodenectomy patients without increasing readmission risk.

The Clavien-Dindo Classification in Pancreatic Surgery: A Clinical and Economic Validation.

Background/Aims: In 2004 P. A. Clavien and D. Dindo published the well-known grading system of postoperative complications. It is established in several surgical disciplines. The aim of this study was to assess its validity in pancreatic surgery. The impact of complication grade on economic resources was investigated as well. Methods: From a prospective database, we retrospectively evaluated all patients who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2009 and December 2014 at our department. 309 patients received pancreatic head resection (pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy (PPPD) or Kausch-Whipple), total pancreatectomy or left resection. We performed a univariate analysis of the correlation between the Clavien-Dindo classification-grade (CDC-grade) with length of postoperative stay (LOS) and DRG-related (diagnosis related groups) remuneration using Kruskal-Wallis test. Furthermore, we performed a subgroup analysis (chi-square test and Fishers-test) of demographic, clinical, and perioperative data. Results: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (p = 0.0014), operation time (p = 0.0229) and intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.0016) showed significant correlation with CDC-grade. Increasing LOS and DRG-related remuneration correlated significantly with increasing CDC-grade (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The CDC-grading system shows high correlation to clinical outcome and case-related remuneration in pancreatic surgery. Therefore, it is a valid tool for evaluation and comparison of surgical techniques and surgical centers.

Costs and Complications: Delayed Gastric Emptying after Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Postoperative delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a very common complication after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This along with other complications can lead to increased health-care costs. This study investigates the costs and length of stay (LOS) associated with these. A retrospective study of 131 patients undergoing PD between 2000 and 2016 at Loma Linda University Health was performed. Chi-squared test was used to determine statistically significant differences between patients with and without DGE (according to the definition of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery). Multiple logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to obtain adjusted odds ratios for variables of interest in association with DGE and relationship to LOS. Of 150 patients undergoing PD, 131 patients with tumors were analyzed. The overall incidence of DGE was 56 per cent. No pre- or postoperative factors were associated with increased risk of DGE. The median LOS for patients with DGE was 15 days versus 9 days for patients without DGE. Patients with DGE added $21,198 to the overall cost of hospitalization. Fourteen patients (10.7%) were readmitted, of whom 11 were because of DGE. Further studies assessing the utility of intraoperative G-tube placement in decreasing hospital costs and readmissions are needed.

Can high-volume teams of anesthesiologists and surgeons decrease perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery outcomes are associated with surgeon and center experience. Anesthesiologists as potential value drivers for pancreatic surgery have not been explored. We sought to evaluate whether anesthesiologists impact perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery. METHODS: Within an integrated health care system, 796 pancreatic surgeries (526 PDs and 270 DPs) were performed from January 2014 to June 2017. Mean direct operative and anesthesia costs driven by anesthesiologists (operating room (OR) time, anesthesia billing and anesthesia procedures) were determined for each case. The volumes of pancreatic cases per anesthesiologist were calculated, and those above the 75th percentile for volume (4 cases) were considered high-volume. A multivariable analysis of OR/anesthesia costs was performed. RESULTS: Mean OR and anesthesia costs for PD were $7064 for low-volume anesthesiologists (LVA), higher than $5968 for high-volume anesthesiologists (HVA) (p < 0.001). By multivariable analysis, HVA were associated with decreased costs of $2278 (p < 0.001). Teams of HVA and high-volume surgeons (HVS) were also associated with decreased mean costs of $1790 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that anesthesiologists experienced in the management of complex pancreatic operations such as PDs may contribute to improved efficiencies in care by reducing perioperative costs.

Postoperative complications in elderly patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy lead to increased postoperative mortality and costs. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Complications frequently occur after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy tend to be older; age and postoperative complication may be associated. To clarify this association, we compared postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy based on age group. We aimed to determine whether we could identify an age cutoff where the incidence and cost of postoperative complications starts increasing and potentially outweigh the potential benefits of pancreaticoduodenectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at one institution from 2011 to 2017. Demographics, operative data and costs were obtained from hospital and administrative databases. A restricted cubic spline regression analysis was performed to graphically identify the age in which the comprehensive complication index (CCI) substantially increased. Cost analysis was undertaken from the perspective of a third-party payer. Differences in costs between age groups were tested using t-test. RESULTS: Among 440 patients, the CCI became significantly higher at the age cutoff of 72 (median 21 in the older vs. 12 in the younger group, P = 0.014). Postoperative complications (74% vs. 64%, P = 0.038), and mortality (8% vs. 3%, P = 0.016) were also significantly higher in the older age group; mostly driven by pneumonia (11% vs. 6%, P = 0.097), myocardial infarction (12% vs. 4%, P < 0.002) and urinary tract infection (18% vs. 5%, P = 0.003). Median length of hospital stay was also longer for the older age group (10 vs. 8 days, P = 0.002). Total mean cost was significantly higher in the older age group ($38,225 CAD vs. $29,771 CAD). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of patients, after age 72, pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with significantly more postoperative complications and deaths which translated in longer hospital stay and higher costs. This information may help patients and surgeons make informed decisions.