Risk Factors and Mitigation Strategies for Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy: Analysis of 2026 Resections From the International, Multi-institutional Distal Pancreatectomy Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To identify a clinical fistula risk score following distal pancreatectomy. BACKGROUND: Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) is a dominant contributor to procedural morbidity, yet risk factors attributable to CR-POPF and effective practices to reduce its occurrence remain elusive. METHODS: This multinational, retrospective study of 2026 DPs involved 52 surgeons at 10 institutions (2001-2016). CR-POPFs were defined by 2016 International Study Group criteria, and risk models generated using stepwise logistic regression analysis were evaluated by c-statistic. Mitigation strategies were assessed by regression modeling while controlling for identified risk factors and treating institution. RESULTS: CR-POPF occurred following 306 (15.1%) DPs. Risk factors independently associated with CR-POPF included: age (<60 yrs: OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.05-1.82), obesity (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19-2.12), hypoalbuminenia (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.06-2.51), the absence of epidural anesthesia (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17-2.16), neuroendocrine or nonmalignant pathology (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.18-2.06), concomitant splenectomy (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.25-3.17), and vascular resection (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.25-3.17). After adjusting for inherent risk between cases by multivariable regression, the following were not independently associated with CR-POPF: method of transection, suture ligation of the pancreatic duct, staple size, the use of staple line reinforcement, tissue patches, biologic sealants, or prophylactic octreotide. Intraoperative drainage was associated with a greater fistula rate (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.51-3.78) but reduced fistula severity (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From this large analysis of pancreatic fistula following DP, CR-POPF occurrence cannot be reliably predicted. Opportunities for developing a risk score model are limited for performing risk-adjusted analyses of mitigation strategies and surgeon performance.

The Beneficial Effects of Minimizing Blood Loss in Pancreatoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to elucidate the impact of intraoperative blood loss on outcomes following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). BACKGROUND: The negative impact of intraoperative blood loss on outcomes in PD has long been suspected but not well characterized, particularly those factors that may be within surgeons' control. METHODS: From 2001 to 2015, 5323 PDs were performed by 62 surgeons from 17 institutions. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was discretized (0 to 300, 301 to 750, 751 to 1300, and >1300 mL) using optimal scaling methodology. Multivariable regression, adjusted for patient, surgeon, and institutional variables, was used to identify associations between EBL and perioperative outcomes. Factors associated with both increased and decreased EBL were elucidated. The relative impact of surgeon-modifiable contributors was estimated through beta coefficient standardization. RESULTS: The median EBL of the series was 400 mL [interquartile range (IQR) 250 to 600]. Intra-, post-, and perioperative transfusion rates were 15.8%, 24.8%, and 37.2%, respectively. Progressive EBL zones correlated with intra- but not postoperative transfusion in a dose-dependent fashion (P < 0.001), with a key threshold of 750 mL EBL (8.14% vs 40.9%; P < 0.001). Increasing blood loss significantly correlated with poor perioperative outcomes. Factors associated with increased EBL were trans-anastomotic stent placement, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction, multiorgan or vascular resection, and elevated operative time, of which 38.7% of the relative impact was "potentially modifiable" by the surgeon. Conversely, female sex, small duct, soft gland, minimally invasive approach, pylorus-preservation, biological sealant use, and institutional volume (≥67/year) were associated with decreased EBL, of which 13.6% was potentially under the surgeon's influence. CONCLUSION: Minimizing blood loss contributes to fewer intraoperative transfusions and better perioperative outcomes for PD. Improvements might be achieved by targeting modifiable factors that influence EBL.

Characterization and Optimal Management of High-risk Pancreatic Anastomoses During Pancreatoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the optimal fistula mitigation strategy following pancreaticoduodenectomy. BACKGROUND: The utility of technical strategies to prevent clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) may vary by the circumstances of the anastomosis. The Fistula Risk Score (FRS) identifies a distinct high-risk cohort (FRS 7 to 10) that demonstrates substantially worse clinical outcomes. The value of various fistula mitigation strategies in these particular high-stakes cases has not been previously explored. METHODS: This multinational study included 5323 PDs performed by 62 surgeons at 17 institutions. Mitigation strategies, including both technique related (ie, pancreatogastrostomy reconstruction; dunking; tissue patches) and the use of adjuvant strategies (ie, intraperitoneal drains; anastomotic stents; prophylactic octreotide; tissue sealants), were evaluated using multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 522 (9.8%) PDs met high-risk FRS criteria, with an observed CR-POPF rate of 29.1%. Pancreatogastrostomy, prophylactic octreotide, and omission of externalized stents were each associated with an increased rate of CR-POPF (all P < 0.001). In a multivariable model accounting for patient, surgeon, and institutional characteristics, the use of external stents [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.81] and the omission of prophylactic octreotide (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.78) were independently associated with decreased CR-POPF occurrence. In the propensity score matched cohort, an "optimal" mitigation strategy (ie, externalized stent and no prophylactic octreotide) was associated with a reduced rate of CR-POPF (13.2% vs 33.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The scenarios identified by the high-risk FRS zone represent challenging anastomoses associated with markedly elevated rates of fistula. Externalized stents and omission of prophylactic octreotide, in the setting of intraperitoneal drainage and pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction, provides optimal outcomes.

Comparing the burden of pancreatic fistulas after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Differences in the behavior of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) have been described after various pancreatic resections. Here, we compare POPFs after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) using the average complication burden (ACB), a quantitative measure of complication burden. METHODS: From 2001 to 2014, 837 DPs and 1,533 PDs were performed by 14 surgeons at 4 institutions. POPFs were categorized by International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula standards as biochemical (grade A) or clinically relevant (CR-POPF; grades B and C). ACB values were derived from fistula severity scores based on the Modified Accordion Severity Grading. The ACB of POPFs was compared between PD and DP. RESULTS: POPFs were more common after DP compared with PD (34.5 vs 27.2%; P < .001); however, the incidence of any complication was greater after PD (64.9 vs 53.2%; P < .001). When POPFs occurred, they were more likely to be the highest-graded complication after DP compared with PD (65.1 vs 51.6%; P < .001). ACB significantly varied between PDs and DPs for grade C POPFs (0.804 vs 0.611; P < .001). POPFs accounted for 31.2% of the overall complication burden after DP compared with 17.5% of the burden after PD. ACB differed significantly across both institutions and surgeons in terms of POPFs, nonfistulous complications, and overall complications (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Although POPFs occur less frequently after PD, they are associated with a greater complication burden compared with DP. ACB varies significantly between health care providers, suggesting the need for risk-adjusted comparisons of complication severity. Using ACB to evaluate a distinct morbidity has the potential to aid in assessing the impact of procedure-specific complications.