Portal Vein Thrombosis After Venous Reconstruction During Pancreatectomy: Timing and Risks.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that portal vein resection during pancreatectomy can help achieve complete tumor clearance and long term-survival. While the safety of vascular resection during pancreatectomy is well documented, the risk of superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) thrombosis after reconstruction remains unclear. This study aimed to describe the incidence and risk factors of SMV/PV thrombosis after vein reconstruction during pancreatectomy. METHODS: All patients who underwent portal vein resection (PVR) during pancreatectomy (2007-2019) were identified from a single institution prospective clinical database. Demographic and clinical data, operative and pathological findings, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Pancreatectomy with PVR was performed in 220 patients (mean age 65.1 years, male/female ratio 0.96). Thrombosis occurred in 36 (16.4%) patients after a median of 15.5 days [IQR 38.5, 1-786 days]. SMV/PV patency rates were 92.7% and 88.7% at 1 and 3 months, respectively. The rate of SMV/PV thrombosis varied according to SMV/PV reconstruction technique: 12.8% after venorrhaphy, 13.2% end-to-end anastomosis, 22.6% autologous vein, and 83.3% synthetic graft interposition (p < 0.0001). SMV/PV thrombosis was associated with increased 90-day mortality (16.7% vs 4.9%, p = 0.02) and overall 30-day complication rate (69.4% vs 42.9%, p = 0.006). Pancreatectomy type, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, pathologic tumor venous invasion, resection margin status, and manner of perioperative anticoagulation did not influence the incidence of PV thrombosis. SMV/PV thrombosis was associated with a nearly 5-times increased risk of postoperative sepsis after pancreatectomy. CONCLUSION: Portal vein thrombosis developed in 16% of patients who underwent pancreatectomy with PVR at a median of 15 days. PVR with synthetic interposition graft carries the highest risk for thrombosis.

Is resident assistance equivalent to fellows during hepatectomy?

OBJECTIVE: Hepatectomy is a complex operative procedure frequently performed at academic institutions with trainee participation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of assistant's training level on outcomes following hepatectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective, single-institution ACS-NSQIP database was performed for patients that underwent hepatectomy (2013-2016). Patients were divided by trainee assistant level: hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) fellow versus general surgery resident (PGY 4-5). Demographic, perioperative, and 30-day outcome variables were compared using Chi-Square/Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariable regression. Cases involving a senior-level general surgery resident or HPB fellow as first assistant were included (n = 352). Those with a second attending, junior-level resident, or no documented assistant were excluded (n = 39). RESULTS: Patients undergoing hepatectomy with an HPB fellow as primary assistant had more frequent preoperative biliary stenting, longer operative time, and more concomitant procedures including biliary reconstruction, resulting in a higher rate of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) (15% vs. 8%, P = 0.044). However, trainee level did not impact PHLF on multivariable analysis (OR 0.60, 95% CI [0.29-1.25], P = 0.173). Fellows assisted with proportionally more major hepatectomies (45% vs. 31%; P = 0.010) and resections for hepatobiliary cancers (31% vs. 19%, P = 0.014). On stratified analysis of major and minor hepatectomies, outcomes were similar between trainee groups. CONCLUSION: Fellows performed higher complexity cases with longer operative time. Despite these differences, outcomes were similar regardless of assistant training level. Resident and HPB fellow participation in operations requiring liver resection provide comparable quality of care.

Optimal Pancreatic Surgery: Are We Making Progress in North America?

OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to assess North American trends in the management of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), and to quantify the delivery of optimal pancreatic surgery. BACKGROUND: Morbidity after pancreatectomy remains unacceptably high. Recent literature suggests that composite measures may more accurately define surgical quality. METHODS: The 2013 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files were queried to identify patients undergoing PD (N = 16,222) and DP (N = 7946). Patient, process, procedure, and 30-day postoperative outcome variables were analyzed over time. Optimal pancreatic surgery was defined as the absence of postoperative mortality, serious morbidity, percutaneous drainage, and reoperation while achieving a length of stay equal to or less than the 75th percentile (12 days for PD and 7 days for DP) with no readmissions. Risk-adjusted time-trend analyses were performed using logistic regression, and the threshold for statistical significance was P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: The use of minimally invasive PD did not change over time, but robotic PD increased (2.5 to 4.2%; P < 0.001) and laparoscopic PD decreased (5.8% to 4.3%; P < 0.02). Operative times decreased (P < 0.05) and fewer transfusions were administered (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a drain fluid amylase checked on postoperative day 1 increased (P < 0.001), and a greater percentage of surgical drains were removed by postoperative day 3 (P < 0.001). Overall morbidity (P < 0.02), mortality (P < 0.05), and postoperative length of stay (P = 0.002) decreased. Finally, the rate of optimal pancreatic surgery increased for PD (53.7% to 56.9%; P < 0.01) and DP (53.3% to 58.5%; P < 0.001), and alspo for patients with pancreatic cancer (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: From 2013 to 2017, pre, intra, and perioperative pancreatectomy processes have evolved, and multiple postoperative outcomes have improved. Thus, in 4 years, optimal pancreatic surgery in North America has increased by 3% to 5%.

Use of primary surgical drains in synchronous resection for colorectal liver metastases: a NSQIP analysis of current practice paradigm.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies examining the use of subhepatic drains after simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM). This study aimed to (1) describe the current practices regarding primary drain placement, (2) evaluate drain efficacy in mitigating postoperative complications, and (3) determine impact of drain maintenance duration on patient outcomes. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP targeted data from 2014 to 2017 were analyzed. Propensity score of surgical drain versus no drain cohorts was performed. Main study outcomes were mortality, major morbidity, organ/space surgical site infection (SSI), secondary drain/aspiration procedure, and any septic events. Additional univariate/multivariate logistic analyses were performed to identify associations with drain placement and duration. Major hepatectomy was defined as formal right hepatectomy and any trisectionectomy. RESULTS: 584 combined liver and colorectal resection (CRR) cases were identified. Open partial hepatectomy with colectomy was the most common procedure (70%, n = 407). Nearly 40% of patients received surgical drains (n = 226). Major hepatectomy, lower serum albumin, and no intraoperative portal vein occlusion (Pringle maneuver) were significantly associated with drain placement (p < 0.05). In the matched cohort (n = 190 in each arm), patients with surgical drains experienced higher rates of major morbidity (30% vs 12%), organ/space SSI (16% vs 6%), postoperative drain/aspiration procedures (9% vs 3%), and sepsis/septic shock (12% vs 4%) (all p < 0.05). Patients with severely prolonged drain removal, defined as after postoperative day 13 (POD13), had higher risk of postoperative morbidity compared to those with earlier drain removal (p < 0.01). 30-day mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Primary surgical drains were placed in a substantial percentage of patients undergoing combined resection for sCRLM. This case-matched analysis suggested that surgical drains are associated with an increase in postoperative morbidity. Postoperative drain maintenance past 13 days is associated with worse outcomes compared to earlier removal.

Post-Pancreaticoduodenectomy Outcomes and Epidural Analgesia: A 5-year Single-Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: Optimal pain control post pancreaticoduodenectomy is a challenge. Epidural analgesia (EDA) is used increasingly, despite inherent risks and unclear effects on outcomes. METHODS: All pancreaticoduodenectomies (PDs) performed from January 2013 through December 2017 were included. Clinical parameters were obtained from a retrospective review of a prospective clinical database, the American College of Surgeons NSQIP prospective institutional database, and medical record review. Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and independent-samples t-tests were used for univariable analyses. Multivariable regression was performed. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy-one consecutive PDs from a single institution were included (429 EDA, 242 non-EDA). On univariable analysis, EDA patients experienced significantly less wound disruption (0.2% vs 2.1%), unplanned intubation (3.0% vs 7.9%), pulmonary embolism (0.5% vs 2.5%), mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hours (2.1% vs 7.9%), septic shock (2.6% vs 5.8%), and lower pain scores. On multivariable regression (accounting for baseline group differences (ie sex, hypertension, preoperative transfusion, laboratory results, approach, and pancreatic duct size), EDA was associated with less superficial wound infections (odds ratio [OR] 0.34; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83; p = 0.017), unplanned intubations (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.88; p = 0.024), mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hours (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; p = 0.004), and septic shock (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; p = 0.050). Epidural analgesia improved pain scores post-PD days 1 to 3 (p < 0.001). No differences were seen in cardiac or renal complications; pancreatic fistula (B+C) or delayed gastric emptying, 30-/90-day mortality, length of stay, readmission, discharge destination, or unplanned reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the largest single-institution series published to date, our data support the use of EDA for optimization of pain control. More importantly, our data document that EDA improved infectious and pulmonary complications significantly.

Wound protectors mitigate superficial surgical site infections after pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the choice of antibiotic prophylaxis, the type of incision, or the use of wound protectors decreases surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing open, elective PD between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017 were identified from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the association of antibiotic prophylaxis type, incision type, and wound protector use on the incidence of any, superficial, and organ/space SSIs, and to profile hospitals. RESULTS: Overall, 5969 patients were included from 140 hospitals. The overall rate of SSI was 20.3% (n = 1213). Superficial SSIs occurred in 432 (7.2%) patients and organ/space SSIs in 841 (14.1%). Wound protector use was associated with 23% lower odds of experiencing any SSIs (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.98), reflective of the decreased odds associated with superficial SSIs (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.97), but not organ/space SSIs (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.17). Highest-performing hospitals frequently utilized broad-spectrum antibiotics, midline incisions, and wound protectors. CONCLUSION: Wound protectors reduced superficial, but not organ/space, infections in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Routine use of wound protectors in patients undergoing proximal pancreatectomy is recommended.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer is safe and effective.

PURPOSE: To compare the short-term and oncologic outcomes of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: Consecutive cases of distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 422) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution over a 10-year period (2005-2014). Inclusion criteria consisted of any patient with PDAC by surgical pathology. Ninety-day outcomes were monitored through a prospectively maintained pancreatic resection database. The Social Security Death Index was used for 5-year survival. Two-way statistical analyses were used to compare categories; variance was reported with standard error of the mean; * indicates P value <0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients underwent DP for PDAC. Thirty-three underwent LDP and 46 ODP. There were no statistical differences in demographics, BMI, and ASA classification. Intraoperative and surgical pathology variables were comparable for LDP versus ODP: operative time (3.9 ± 0.2 vs. 4.2 ± 0.2 h), duct size, gland texture, stump closure, tumor size (3.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.0 ± 0.4 cm), lymph node harvest (14.5 ± 1.1 vs. 17.5 ± 1.2), tumor stage (see table), and negative surgical margins (77 vs. 87%). Patients who underwent LDP experienced lower blood loss (310 ± 68 vs. 597 ± 95 ml; P = 0.016*) and required fewer transfusions (0 vs. 13; P = 0.0008*). Patients who underwent LDP had fewer positive lymph nodes (0.8 ± 0.2 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3; P = 0.04*) and a lower incidence of type C pancreatic fistula (0 vs. 13%; P = 0.03*). Median follow-up for all patients was 11.4 months. Long-term oncologic outcomes revealed similar outcomes including distant or local recurrence (30 vs. 52%; P = 0.05) and median survival (18 vs. 15 months), as well as 1-year (73 vs. 59%), 3-year (22 vs. 21%), and 5-year (20 vs. 15%) survival for LDP and ODP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this series suggest that LDP is a safe surgical approach that is comparable from an oncologic standpoint to ODP for the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Indication for en bloc pancreatectomy with colectomy: when is it safe?

INTRODUCTION: Aggressive en bloc resection of adjacent organs is often necessary to resect pancreatic or colonic lesions. However, it is debated whether simultaneous pancreatectomy with colectomy (P+C) is warranted as it potentially increases morbidity and mortality (MM). We hypothesized that MM would be increased in P+C, especially in cases of pancreatitis. METHODS: All patients who underwent pancreatectomy (P) and simultaneous pancreatectomy with colectomy (P+C) at a high-volume center from November 2006 to 2015 were prospectively collected using ACS-NSQIP at our institution. Patients with additional multivisceral or enucleation procedures were excluded. Data were augmented to 90-day outcomes using our institutional database. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with a mean age of 62 years (27:16 male: female) underwent P+C, accounting for 2.39% (43/1797) of pancreatectomies performed. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was performed in 61% (n = 26), distal pancreatectomy (DP) in 37% (n = 16), and total pancreatectomy (TP) in 2% (n = 1) of patients. The 30- and 90-day MM were higher in P+C than P (30-day: 54 vs. 37%, p = 0.037 and 9 vs. 2%, p = 0.022; 90-day: 61 vs. 42%, p = 0.019 and 14 vs. 3%, p = 0.002). Logistical regression modeling revealed an association between 90-day mortality and colectomy (p = 0.013, OR = 3.556). When P+C MM were analyzed according to intraoperative factors, there was no significant difference according to type of pancreatectomy (PD vs. DP vs. TP), origin of primary lesion (pancreas vs. colon), surgical indication (malignant vs. non-malignant), or case status (planned colectomy vs. intraoperative decision). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of colectomy to pancreatectomy substantially increased MM. Subanalysis revealed that type of resection performed, etiology, and planning status did not account for increased risk when performing P+C. However, colectomy was found to be an independent risk factor for mortality. Therefore, patients should be informed of the risk of increased postoperative complications until a further study can identify potential patients or perioperative factors that can be used for risk stratification.

Pancreatoduodenectomy with venous or arterial resection: a NSQIP propensity score analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vascular resection during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is being performed more frequently. Our aim was to analyze the outcomes of PD with and without vascular resection in a large, multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patient data were gathered from 43 institutions as part of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project. Over a 14-month period, 1414 patients underwent PD without (82.2%) or with major venous (PD + V; 13.7%) or arterial (PD + A; 4.0%) vascular resection. RESULTS: Postoperative morbidity and mortality following PD + A (51.0% and 3.6%) was comparable to PD + V (46.9% and 3.6%) and PD (44.3 and 1.5%, p = 0.50 and 0.43). A propensity score matched analysis revealed that vascular resection was associated with significant increases (p ≤ 0.05) in operative time (7:37 vs 6:11), need for blood transfusion (42.2% vs 18.1%), deep venous thromboembolism (6.9% vs 0.9%), postoperative septic shock (6.9% vs 1.7%), and length of stay (12.2 vs 10 days) while overall morbidity (45.7% vs 46.6) and mortality (1.0% vs 0%) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PD alone, PD + VR was associated with increased operative time, perioperative transfusions, deep venous thrombosis, septic shock, as well as length of stay, but overall morbidity and mortality were not increased.

Relative Contributions of Complications and Failure to Rescue on Mortality in Older Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: For pancreatectomy patients, mortality increases with increasing age. Our study evaluated the relative contribution of overall postoperative complications and failure to rescue rates on the observed increased mortality in older patients undergoing pancreatic resection at specialized centers. METHODS: We identified 2694 patients who underwent pancreatic resection from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project at 37 high-volume centers. Overall morbidity and in-hospital mortality were determined in patients younger than 80 years (N = 2496) and 80 years or older (N = 198). Failure to rescue was the number of deaths in patients with complications divided by the total number of patients with postoperative complications. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between patients younger than 80 years and those 80 years or older in the rates of overall complications (41.4% vs 39.4%, P = 0.58). In-hospital mortality increased in patients 80 years or older compared to patients younger than 80 years (3.0% vs 1.1%, P = 0.02). Failures to rescue rates were higher in patients 80 years or older (7.7% vs 2.7%, P = 0.01). Across 37 high-volume centers, unadjusted complication rates ranged from 25.0% to 72.2% and failure to rescue rates ranged from 0.0% to 25.0%. Among patients with postoperative complications, comorbidities associated with failure to rescue were ascites, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. Complications associated with failure to rescue included acute renal failure, septic shock, and postoperative pulmonary complications. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, the rates of complications after pancreatectomy in patients 80 years or older compared to patients younger than 80 years were similar. However, when complications occurred, older patients were more likely to die. Interventions to identify and aggressively treat complications are necessary to decrease mortality in vulnerable older patients.

Reducing Readmissions after Pancreatectomy: Limiting Complications and Coordinating the Care Continuum.

BACKGROUND: Recent analyses of gastrointestinal operations document that complications are a key driver of readmissions. Pancreatectomy is a high outlier with respect to readmission. This analysis sought to determine if a multifactorial approach could reduce readmissions after pancreatectomy. STUDY DESIGN: From 2007 to 2012, the number of patients readmitted by 30 days after pancreaticoduodenectomy, and distal and total pancreatectomy was measured. Steps to decrease readmissions were implemented independently at 1-year intervals; these efforts included strategies to reduce complications, creation of a Readmissions Team with a "discharge coach," increased use of home health, preferred relationships with post-acute care facilities, and the adoption of "Project RED" (Re-Engineered Discharge). The ACS NSQIP was used to track 30-day outcomes for all pancreatic resections. The University HealthSystem Consortium was used to determine length of stay index. RESULTS: Over 5 years, 1,163 patients underwent proximal (66%), distal (32%), or total pancreatectomy (2%). The observed 30-day mortality was 2.9% for the study period, and the length of stay index (observed/expected days) was 1.10. Neither varied significantly over time. However, 30-day morbidity decreased from 57% to 46%, and proportion of patients with 30-day all-cause readmissions decreased from 23.0% to 11.5% (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause 30-day readmissions after pancreatectomy decreased without increasing length of stay. Efforts by surgeons to decrease complications and an increased emphasis on coordination of care may be useful for reducing readmissions.

Distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection: what are the added risks?

BACKGROUND: Reported series of a distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) are either small or not adequately controlled. The aim of this analysis was to report a multicentre series of modified Appleby procedures with a comparison group to determine the relative operative risk. METHODS: Data were gathered through the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project. Over 14 months, 822 patients underwent a distal pancreatectomy at 43 institutions. Twenty of these patients (2.4%) also underwent a celiac axis resection. DP-CAR patients were matched by age, gender, BMI, serum albumin, ASA class, gland texture, duct size and pathology to 172 patients undergoing DP alone. RESULTS: The majority of DP and DP-CAR patients had adenocarcinomas (61% and 60%). The median operative time for a DP alone was shorter than for a DP-CAR (207 versus 276 min, P < 0.01). Post-operative acute kidney injury (1% versus 10%, P < 0.03) and 30-day mortality were higher after a DP-CAR (1% versus 10%, P < 0.03). CONCLUSION: A distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection is associated with increased operative time, post-operative acute kidney injury and a 10% operative mortality. The decision to offer a modified Appleby procedure for a body of pancreas tumour should be made with full disclosure of the increased risks.

Does Pancreatic Stump Closure Method Influence Distal Pancreatectomy Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fistula remains the primary source of morbidity following distal pancreatectomy. Previous studies have reported specific methods of parenchymal transection/stump sealing in an effort to decrease the pancreatic fistula rate with highly variable results. The aim of this study was to determine postoperative outcomes following various pancreatic stump-sealing methods. STUDY DESIGN: All cases of distal pancreatectomy were reviewed at a single institution between January 2008 and June 2011 and were monitored with complete 30-day outcomes through ACS-NSQIP. Pancreatic stump-sealing method was used to create three operation groups (suture, staple, or saline-linked radiofrequency). Two- and three-way statistical analyses were performed among the operation groups. RESULTS: Two hundred three patients underwent distal pancreatectomy. The most common diagnoses included chronic pancreatitis, adenocarcinoma, and IPMN. The suture, staple, and SLRF groups included 90 (44%), 61 (30%), and 52 (26%) patients, respectively. Overall complications (range 31-38%) and pancreatic fistula (range 25-26%) were similar with each pancreatic closure technique. Operative technique was not associated with an increased need for postoperative interventions or hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative outcomes after distal pancreatectomy are unaffected by the use of SLRF sealing of the pancreatic stump when compared to traditional suture or reinforced stapling techniques.

Is American College of Surgeons NSQIP organ space infection a surrogate for pancreatic fistula?

BACKGROUND: In the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), pancreatic fistula has not been monitored, although organ space infection (OSI) data are collected. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to determine the relationship between ACS NSQIP organ space infection and pancreatic fistulas. STUDY DESIGN: From 2007 to 2011, 976 pancreatic resection patients were monitored via ACS NSQIP at our institution. From this database, 250 patients were randomly chosen for further analysis. Four patients were excluded because they underwent total pancreatectomy. Data on OSI were gathered prospectively. Data on pancreatic fistulas and other intra-abdominal complications were determined retrospectively. RESULTS: Organ space infections (OSIs) were documented in 22 patients (8.9%). Grades B (n = 26) and C (n = 5) pancreatic fistulas occurred in 31 patients (12.4%); grade A fistulas were observed in 38 patients (15.2%). Bile leaks and gastrointestinal (GI) anastomotic leaks each developed in 5 (2.0%) patients. Only 17 of 31 grade B and C pancreatic fistulas (55%), and none of 38 grade A fistulas were classified as OSIs in ACS NSQIP. In addition, only 2 of 5 bile leaks (40%) and 2 of 5 GI anastomotic leaks (40%) were OSIs. Moreover, 3 OSIs were due to bacterial peritonitis, a chyle leak, and an ischemic bowel. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the sensitivity (55%) and specificity (45%) of organ space infection (OSI) in ACS NSQIP are too low for OSI to be a surrogate for grade B and C pancreatic fistulas. We concluded that procedure-specific variables will be required for ACS NSQIP to improve outcomes after pancreatectomy.

Low drain fluid amylase predicts absence of pancreatic fistula following pancreatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Improvements in the ability to predict pancreatic fistula could enhance patient outcomes. Previous studies demonstrate that drain fluid amylase on postoperative day 1 (DFA1) is predictive of pancreatic fistula. We sought to assess the accuracy of DFA1 and to identify a reliable DFA1 threshold under which pancreatic fistula is ruled out. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatic resection from November 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 were selected from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project database. Pancreatic fistula was defined as drainage of amylase-rich fluid with drain continuation >7 days, percutaneous drainage, or reoperation for a pancreatic fluid collection. Univariate and multi-variable regression models were utilized to identify factors predictive of pancreatic fistula. RESULTS: DFA1 was recorded in 536 of 2,805 patients who underwent pancreatic resection, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 380), distal pancreatectomy (n = 140), and enucleation (n = 16). Pancreatic fistula occurred in 92/536 (17.2%) patients. DFA1, increased body mass index, small pancreatic duct size, and soft texture were associated with fistula (p < 0.05). A DFA1 cutoff value of <90 U/L demonstrated the highest negative predictive value of 98.2%. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve confirmed the predictive relationship of DFA1 and pancreatic fistula. CONCLUSION: Low DFA1 predicts the absence of a pancreatic fistula. In patients with DFA1 < 90 U/L, early drain removal is advisable.

Factors associated with delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: The factors associated with delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are not definitively known. METHODS: From November 2011 through to May 2012, data were prospectively collected on 711 patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy or total pancreatectomy as part of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project. Bivariate and multivariate models were employed to determine the factors that predicted DGE. RESULTS: In the 711 patients, the overall rate of DGE was 20.1%. In a bivariate analysis, intra-operative factors such as pylorus-preservation (47.1% versus 43.7%, P = 0.40), intra-operative drain placement (85.5%, versus 85.1%, P = 0.91) and an antecolic compared with a retrocolic gastrojejunostomy (60.1% versus 65.1%, P = 0.26) were not different between the DGE and no DGE groups. Pancreatic fistula formation (31.2% versus 10.1%), post-operative sepsis (21.7% versus 7.0%), organ space surgical site infection (SSI) (23.9% versus 7.9%), need for percutaneous drainage (23.0% versus 10.6%) and reoperation (10.6% versus 3.1%) were higher in patients with DGE (P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, only pancreatic fistula, post-operative sepsis and reoperation were independently associated with DGE. DISCUSSION: In this multicentre study, only post-operative complications were associated with DGE. Neither pylorus preservation nor route of enteric reconstruction (antecolic versus retrocolic) was associated with delayed gastric emptying.

Unplanned intubation: when and why does this deadly complication occur?

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for unplanned intubation have been delineated, but details regarding when and why reintubations occur as well as strategies for prevention have not been defined. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, 104 of 3,141 patients (3.3%) monitored via the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program required unplanned intubation. These patients were compared to those who remained extubated and were characterized by (1) the operation performed; (2) the postoperative day when reintubation occurred; and (3) the underlying causes. RESULTS: Patients who required reintubation were significantly older (65.8 years) and were more likely to be male (55%) and to have several comorbidities, weight loss (16%), dependency (14%), or sepsis (9%). The operations complicated most commonly by unplanned intubation were gastrectomy (13%), nephrectomy (10%), colectomy (9%), pancreatectomy (8%), hepatectomy (7%), and enterectomy (6%). The most common causes and median postoperative days were sepsis (33%, day 8) and aspiration/pneumonia (31%, day 4). Sepsis was due most commonly to an abdominal or pelvic abscess (74%), which was frequently not recognized despite an inflammatory response. Aspiration occurred most commonly after upper abdominal operations (78%) despite signs of diminished bowel function. CONCLUSION: Postoperative sepsis and aspiration/pneumonia account for two thirds of unplanned intubations. Opportunities for management of patients exist for the prevention of this deadly complication.

Reducing surgical site infections in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing complex hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) operations are at high risk for surgical site infection (SSI). Factors such as biliary obstruction, operative time and pancreatic or biliary fistulae contribute to the high SSI rate. The purpose of this study was to analyse whether a multifactorial approach would reduce the incidence and cost of SSI after HPB surgery. METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2009, 895 complex HPB operations were monitored for SSI through the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). In 2008, surgeon-specific SSI rates were provided to HPB surgeons, and guidelines for the management of perioperative factors were established. Observed SSI rates were monitored before and after these interventions. Hospital cost data were analysed and cost savings were calculated. RESULTS: Observed SSI for hepatic, pancreatic and complex biliary operations decreased by 9.6% over a 2-year period (P < 0.03). The excess cost per SSI was US$11 462 and was driven by increased length of stay and hospital readmission for infection. Surgeons rated surgeon-specific feedback on SSI rate as the most important factor in improvement. CONCLUSIONS: High SSI rates following complex HPB operations can be improved by a multifactorial approach that features process improvements, individual surgeon feedback and reduced variation in patient management.

Cholangiocarcinoma: are North American surgical outcomes optimal?

BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinomas are deadly and require complex decisions as well as major surgery. A few referral centers have reported good results, but no robust, risk-adjusted outcomes data are available. The aims of this study were to analyze the surgical outcomes of a very large cohort of patients undergoing operations for cholangiocarcinoma in North America. STUDY DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File was queried for patients with bile duct cancers. Patients (n = 839) were classified as having intrahepatic (36.5%), perihilar (34.4%), or distal (29.1%) cholangiocarcinomas by the type of procedure performed. Observed and expected (O/E) morbidity and mortality rates, O/E indices, and regression-adjusted risk factors were determined. RESULTS: Mortality was highest for perihilar tumors that were managed with hepatectomy and biliary-enteric anastomosis (11.9%) and lowest for distal cholangiocarcinomas (1.2%). After risk adjustment, mortality was considerable greater than expected for patients undergoing hepatectomy with biliary-enteric anastomosis (O/E = 3.0) or hepatectomy alone (O/E = 2.4). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that postoperative outcomes are best for distal and worst for perihilar cholangiocarcinomas, and hepatectomy for bile duct cancers is associated with a 2- to 3-fold mortality risk. We conclude that North American surgical outcomes can be improved for patients with proximal cholangiocarcinomas.