Blunt Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?

INTRODUCTION: Trauma centers have improved outcomes compared to nontrauma centers when caring for injured patients. A multicenter report found blunt trauma patients treated at American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma centers have improved survival compared to Level II centers. In a subsequent multicenter study, Level II centers had improved survival in all trauma patients. We sought to provide a more granular analysis by stratifying blunt mechanisms-to determine if there was a difference in mortality between Level I and Level II centers. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients presenting to an American College of Surgeons' Level I or II trauma center after blunt trauma. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed controlling for comorbidities and Trauma and Injury Severity Score. RESULTS: From 734,473 patients with blunt trauma, 507,715 (69.1%) were treated at a Level I center and 226,758 (30.9%) at a Level II center. The Level I cohort was younger (median age, 53 versus 58, P = 0.01), with a higher median injury severity score (13 versus 10, P < 0.001) and with more patients presenting after a motor vehicle accident (MVA) (27.9% versus 22.4%, P < 0.001) and lower rates of falls (46.6% versus 54.5%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, there was no difference in mortality between Level I and Level II centers (P > 0.05). When stratifying by mechanisms, Level I centers had a decreased associated mortality for MVA (odds ratio = 0.94, CI: 0.88-0.99, P = 0.04) and bicycle accidents (odds ratio = 0.77, CI: 0.74-0.03, P = 0.01) but no difference in falls or pedestrians struck (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, blunt trauma patients presenting to a Level I center have no difference in mortality compared to a Level II center. However, when stratified by mechanism, those involved in MVA or bicycle accidents have a decreased associated risk of mortality. Future prospective studies examining variations in practice to account for these differences are warranted.

Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Following Emergency Department Admission: Understanding Poor Outcomes and Disparities in Care.

BACKGROUND: The impact of emergency department admission prior to pancreatic resection on perioperative outcomes is not well described. We compared patients who underwent pancreatic cancer surgery following admission through the emergency department (ED-surgery) with patients receiving elective pancreatic cancer surgery (elective) and outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify patients undergoing pancreatectomy for cancer over 5 years (2008-2012). Demographics and hospital characteristics were assessed, along with perioperative outcomes and disposition status. RESULTS: A total of 8158 patients were identified, of which 516 (6.3%) underwent surgery after admission through the ED. ED-surgery patients were more often socioeconomically disadvantaged (non-White 39% vs. 18%, Medicaid or uninsured 24% vs. 7%, from lowest income area 33% vs. 21%; all p < .0001), had higher comorbidity (Elixhauser score > 6: 44% vs. 26%, p < .0001), and often had pancreatectomy performed at sites with lower annual case volume (< 7 resections/year: 53% vs. 24%, p < .0001). ED-surgery patients were less likely to be discharged home after surgery (70% vs. 82%, p < .0001) and had higher mortality (7.4% vs. 3.5%, p < .0001). On multivariate analysis, ED-surgery was independently associated with a lower likelihood of being discharged home (aOR 0.55 (95%CI 0.43-0.70)). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing pancreatectomy following ED admission experience worse outcomes compared with those who undergo surgery after elective admission. The excess of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients in this group suggests factors other than clinical considerations alone drive this decision. This study demonstrates the need to consider presenting patient circumstances and preoperative oncologic coordination to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for pancreatic cancer surgery.

Effect of preoperative renal insufficiency on postoperative outcomes after pancreatic resection: a single institution experience of 1,061 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is known to adversely affect cardiac and vascular surgery outcomes. We examined the effect of preoperative renal insufficiency on postoperative outcomes after pancreatic resection. STUDY DESIGN: All patients who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2005 and July 2012 were identified. Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula. Severe CKD (stages 4-5) was defined as eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Renal function also was analyzed using serum creatinine (sCr) dichotomized at 1.8 mg/dL. Primary outcomes were any complication, major complications, and respiratory failure. Multivariate models for each endpoint were constructed by including all variables with p value ≤ 0.10 on univariate analysis. RESULTS: There were 1,061 patients identified; 709 underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 307 distal pancreatectomy, and 45 central or total pancreatectomy. Median sCr value was 0.86 mg/dL (range 0.30 to 14.1 mg/dL). Eighteen patients (1.7%) had severe CKD and 31 (2.9%) had sCr ≥ 1.8 mg/dL. Complications occurred in 622 patients (58.6%), major complications in 198 (18.7%), and respiratory failure in 48 (4.5%). Both severe CKD and sCr ≥ 1.8 mg/dL were associated with any complication, major complications, and respiratory failure on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, severe CKD was associated with increased complications (odds ratio [OR] 5.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 25.5; p = 0.02) and respiratory failure (OR 6.1; 95% CI 1.8 to 20.5; p = 0.03), but not major complications. Using sCr ≥ 1.8 mg/dL as a surrogate marker for renal insufficiency, patients with sCr ≥ 1.8 mg/dL had increased risk of any complication (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 9.3; p = 0.01), major complications (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.04 to 4.8; p = 0.04), and respiratory failure (OR 4.7; 95% CI 1.8 to 12.6; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Few patients with significant renal insufficiency are candidates for pancreatic resection. Severe CKD (stages 4-5) is associated with increased risk of complication and respiratory failure. Serum creatinine ≥ 1.8 mg/dL may serve as a useful marker of renal insufficiency and identifies patients at significantly increased risk of any complication, major complication, and respiratory failure after pancreatic resection.

Is it time to stop checking frozen section neck margins during pancreaticoduodenectomy?

BACKGROUND: Residual disease after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) adversely impacts survival. The value of taking additional neck margin after a positive frozen section (FS) to achieve a negative margin remains uncertain. METHODS: All patients who underwent PD for PDAC from January 2000 August 2012 were identified and classified as negative (R0) or positive (R1) based on final neck margin. We examined factors for association with a positive FS neck margin and overall survival (OS). We assessed the value of converting an R1 neck margin to R0 via additional parenchymal resection. RESULTS: A total of 382 patients had FS neck margin analysis, of which 53 (14 %) were positive. Positive FS neck margin was associated with decreased OS (11.1 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.01) on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis poor histologic grade (p = 0.007), increased tumor size (p = 0.003), and a positive retroperitoneal margin (p = 0.009) were independently associated with decreased OS, but positive FS neck margin was not. Of the 53 patients with positive FS, 41 underwent additional neck resection and 23 were converted to R0. On permanent section, R0 neck margin was achieved in 322 patients (84 %), R1 in 37 patients (10 %), and R1 converted to R0 in 23 patients (6 %). Both the converted and the R1 groups had significantly poorer OS than the R0 group (11.3 vs. 11.1 vs. 17.3 months respectively; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Positive FS margin at the pancreatic neck during PD for PDAC is associated with poor survival. Extending the neck resection after a positive FS to achieve R0 margin status does not appear to improve OS.

Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies.

BACKGROUND: Routine use of operative (primary) drains after pancreaticoduodenctomy (PD) remains controversial. We reviewed our experience with PD for postoperative (secondary) drainage and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates based on use of primary drains. STUDY DESIGN: We identified consecutive patients who underwent PD between 2005 and 2012 from our pancreatectomy database. Primary closed suction drains were placed at the surgeon's discretion. Patient and operative factors were assessed, along with POPF, complications, and secondary drain placement rates. RESULTS: There were 709 PDs performed, and 251 (35%) patients had primary drains placed. Age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities were similar among groups; however, drained patients had slightly larger pancreatic ducts (mean diameter 3.8 mm vs 2.2 mm; p < 0.01). The overall secondary drainage rate was 7.1%. Primary drain placement did not affect the need for secondary drainage (with primary drain, 8.4% vs without primary drain 6.3%, p = 0.36), reoperation (5.6% vs 5.7%, p = 1.00), readmission (17.5% vs 16.8%, p = 0.89), or 30-day mortality (2.0% vs 2.5%, p = 0.80). When compared with the no drain group, patients with primary drains experienced higher rates of overall morbidity (68.1% vs 54.1%, p < 0.01) and significant POPF (16.3% vs 7.6%; p < 0.01), as well as longer hospital stays (13.8 days vs 11.3 days; p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, primary drain placement remained an independent risk factor for pancreatic fistula formation (hazard ratio 3.3, p < 0.01), but did not have an impact on secondary drainage rates (p = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of closed suction drains during pancreaticoduodenectomy does not appear to decrease the rate of secondary drainage procedures or reoperation, and may be associated with increased pancreatic fistula formation and overall morbidity. These data support foregoing routine primary operative drainage at time of pancreaticoduodenectomy.