AHPBA guidelines for managing VTE prophylaxis and anticoagulation for pancreatic surgery

Surgical Outcome After Distal Pancreatectomy With and Without Portomesenteric Venous Resection in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Transatlantic Evaluation of Patients in North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands (GAPASURG)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma located in the pancreatic body might require a portomesenteric venous resection (PVR), but data regarding surgical risks after distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR are sparse. Insight into additional surgical risks of DP-PVR could support preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision making. This study aimed to provide insight into the surgical outcome of DP-PVR, including its potential risk elevation over standard DP.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study including all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent DP ± PVR (2018-2020), registered in four audits for pancreatic surgery from North America, Germany, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Patients who underwent concomitant arterial and/or multivisceral resection(s) were excluded. Predictors for in-hospital/30-day major morbidity and mortality were investigated by logistic regression, correcting for each audit.

RESULTS

Overall, 2924 patients after DP were included, of whom 241 patients (8.2%) underwent DP-PVR. Rates of major morbidity (24% vs. 18%; p = 0.024) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.041) were higher after DP-PVR compared with standard DP. Mortality after DP-PVR and standard DP did not differ significantly (2% vs. 1%; p = 0.542). Predictors for major morbidity were PVR (odds ratio [OR] 1.500, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.086-2.071) and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 1.420, 95% CI 1.032-1.970). Predictors for mortality were higher age (OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.045-1.132), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 4.167, 95% CI 1.852-9.374), and conversion from minimally invasive to open surgery (OR 2.919, 95% CI 1.197-7.118), whereas concomitant PVR was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

PVR during DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic body is associated with increased morbidity, but can be performed safely in terms of mortality.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy is Associated with Increased Risk of Postoperative DVT After Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: a NSQIP Analysis

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a persistent source of postoperative morbidity despite prevention and mitigation efforts. Cancer, surgery, and chemotherapy are known risk factors for VTE. Existing literature suggests that neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) may contribute to increased VTE risk in the postoperative period, but few authors specifically examine this relationship in distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In this study, we analyze the association of NAT and postoperative VTE in patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) for PDAC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, we analyzed the Procedure Targeted files for pancreatectomy from 2014 to 2020. Adults with PDAC who underwent DP were grouped by receipt of NAT. The primary outcome was the rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and the secondary outcome was the rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine risk factors associated with postoperative DVT.

RESULTS

There were 4327 patients with PDAC who underwent DP. Of these, 1414 (32.7%) had NAT. Receipt of NAT was significantly associated with postoperative DVT requiring therapy (3.5% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.02), but was not associated with PE (p = 0.42). On MVA, NAT was associated with a 73% greater chance of developing postoperative DVT [odds ratio (OR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.18-2.55].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who receive NAT prior to DP for PDAC are 73% more likely to develop postoperative DVT compared with upfront resection. As NAT becomes more commonplace, these high-risk patients should be prioritized for guideline-recommended extended duration prophylaxis.

Management and outcomes of hemorrhage after distal pancreatectomy: a multicenter study at high volume centers

BACKGROUND

Data on clinically relevant post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (CR-PPH) are derived from series mostly focused on pancreatoduodenectomy, and data after distal pancreatectomy (DP) are scarce.

METHODS

All non-extended DP performed from 2014 to 2018 were included. CR-PPH encompassed grade B and C PPH. Risk factors, management, and outcomes of CR-PPH were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 1188 patients were included, of which 561 (47.2 %) were operated on minimally invasively. Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 574 patients (48.4 %). Ninety-day mortality, severe morbidity and CR-POPF rates were 1.1 % (n = 13), 17.4 % (n = 196) and 15.5 % (n = 115), respectively. After a median interval of 8 days (range, 0-37), 65 patients (5.5 %) developed CR-PPH, including 28 grade B and 37 grade C. Reintervention was required in 57 patients (87.7 %). CR-PPH was associated with a significant increase of 90-day mortality, morbidity and hospital stay (p < 0.001). Upon multivariable analysis, prolonged operative time and co-existing POPF were independently associated with CR-PPH (p < 0.005) while a chronic use of antithrombotic agent trended towards an increase of CR-PPH (p = 0.081). As compared to CR-POPF, the failure-to-rescue rate in patients who developed CR-PPH was significantly higher (13.8 % vs. 1.3 %, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CR-PPH after DP remains rare but significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality and failure-to-rescue.

Adherence to Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Outcomes After Complex Gastrointestinal Oncologic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for cancer patients after major gastrointestinal (GI) operations. However, adherence to the guidelines has been low, and the clinical outcomes not well defined.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed a random 10 % sample of the 2009-2022 IQVIA LifeLink PharMetrics Plus database, an administrative claims database representative of the commercially insured population of the United States. The study selected cancer patients undergoing major pancreas, liver, gastric, or esophageal surgery. The primary outcomes were 90-day post-discharge VTE and bleeding.

RESULTS

The study identified 2296 unique eligible operations. During the index hospitalization, 52 patients (2.2 %) experienced VTE, 74 patients (3.2 %) had postoperative bleeding, and 140 patients (6.1 %) had a hospital stay of at least 28 days. The remaining 2069 operations comprised 833 pancreatectomies, 664 hepatectomies, 295 gastrectomies, and 277 esophagectomies. The median age of the patients was 49 years, and 44 % were female. Extended VTE prophylaxis prescriptions were filled for 176 patients (10.4 % for pancreas, 8.1 % for liver, 5.8 % for gastric cancer, and 6.5 % for esophageal cancer), and the most used agent was enoxaparin (96 % of the patients). After discharge, VTE occurred for 5.2 % and bleeding for 5.2 % of the patients. The findings showed no association of extended VTE prophylaxis with post-discharge VTE (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.81-2.96) or bleeding (OR, 0.72, 95 % CI, 0.32-1.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the cancer patients undergoing complex GI surgery did not receive extended VTE prophylaxis according to the current guidelines, and their VTE rate was not higher than for the patients who received it.

Venous Thromboembolism and Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Perioperative Pancreatic Cancer Care

Recent studies have shown that patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by surgery have an improved outcome compared to patients treated with upfront surgery. Hence, patients with PDAC are more and more frequently treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. PDAC patients are at a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is associated with decreased survival rates. As patients with PDAC were historically offered immediate surgical resection, data on VTE incidence and associated preoperative risk factors are scarce. Current guidelines recommend primary prophylactic anticoagulation in selected groups of patients with advanced PDAC. However, recommendations for patients with (borderline) resectable PDAC treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting are lacking. Nevertheless, the prevention of complications is crucial to maintain the best possible condition for surgery. This narrative review summarizes current literature on VTE incidence, associated risk factors, risk assessment tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis in PDAC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.

Assessing the use of Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis on the Rates of Venous Thromboembolism and Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage Following Pancreatectomy for Malignancy

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) in patients with pancreatic or periampullary malignancy preimplementation and postimplementation of routine extended VTE prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend up to 28 days of VTE prophylaxis following major abdominal cancer operations. There is a paucity of data examining rates of VTE and PPH in patients who receive extended VTE prophylaxis following pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Single-institution analysis of patients who underwent pancreatectomy for malignancy (2004-2021). VTE and PPH rates within 90 days of discharge were compared based on receipt of extended VTE prophylaxis with enoxaparin.

RESULTS

A total of 478 patients were included. Twenty-two (4.6%) patients developed a postoperative VTE, 12 (2.5%) of which occurred postdischarge. Twenty-five (5.2%) patients experienced PPH, 13 (2.7%) of which occurred postdischarge. There was no associated difference in the development of postdischarge VTE between patients who received extended VTE prophylaxis and those who did not (2.3% vs 2.8%, P =0.99). There was no associated difference in the rate of postdischarge PPH between patients who received extended VTE prophylaxis and those who did not (3.4% vs 1.9%, P =0.43). In the subset of patients on antiplatelet agents, the addition of enoxaparin did not appear to be associated with higher VTE (3.9 vs. 0%, P =0.31) or PPH (3.0 vs. 4.5%, P =0.64) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended VTE prophylaxis following pancreatectomy for malignancy was not associated with differences in postdischarge VTE and PPH rates. These data suggest extended VTE prophylaxis is safe but may not be necessary for all patients following pancreatectomy.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following colorectal surgery: a survey of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery (ASCRS) member surgeons

BACKGROUND

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with significant morbidity. Evidence from other surgical specialties demonstrate inadequate use of extended VTE prophylaxis following cancer surgery. While guidelines recommend extended VTE prophylaxis for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC), it is unknown to what extent colon and rectal surgeons adhere to these recommendations.

METHODS

An 18-question online survey was distributed to all surgeon members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS). The survey was designed to capture knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ASCRS VTE prevention guidelines. Questions were also designed to elucidate barriers to adopting these guidelines.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 2,316 ASCRS-member surgeons and there were 201 complete responses (8.7% response rate). Most respondents (136/201, 68%) reported that they were familiar with ASCRS VTE prevention guidelines and used them to guide their practice. Extended VTE prophylaxis was reported to be routinely prescribed by the majority of surgeons following CRC resection (109/201, 54%), with an additional 27% reporting selective prescribing (55/201). The most frequently reported reasons for not prescribing extended VTE chemoprophylaxis following CRC resection included patient compliance and insurance/copay issues.

CONCLUSION

Most ASCRS-member surgeon respondents reported that they are familiar with ASCRS VTE prevention guidelines, though only 54% surgeons reported routinely prescribing extended VTE prophylaxis following CRC surgery. Patient compliance and insurance issues were identified as the most common barriers. Targeted interventions at the surgeon, patient, and payer level are required to increase the use of extended VTE prophylaxis following CRC resection.

Risk adjusted venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following pancreatic surgery

This study analyzes pancreatectomy cases performed between 2016 and 2021 to determine the impact of using Caprini guideline indicated VTE prophylaxis on VTE and bleeding complications. This is a retrospective study of cases performed in a single academic health care system, in which Caprini score and VTE prevention measures were determined retroactively and prevention practices binarized as appropriate or not appropriate. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed of 1,299 pancreatectomy case. Most patients were stratified as high risk for postoperative VTE. Receiving appropriate VTE prophylaxis during admission was associated with a 3-fold reduction in VTE complications (0.82% vs. 2.64%, p=0.01) without increasing bleeding complications. All VTE complications occurring with 30-day (1.2%) and 90-day (2.7%) from hospital discharged occurred in those not receiving appropriate prophylaxis, and discharged bleeding complications were also not associated with receivng appropriate discharged VTE prophylaxis. The findings our the study are significant as it highlights the ongoing need for standardization in VTE risk assessment and prevention measures to increase compliance to risk adjusted VTE prevention practice guidelines, thus reducing preventable VTE complications and potentially associated morbidity and mortality.

Tips and tricks for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric/portal vein resection and reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Open pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (OPD-VR) is now standard of care in patients who responded to neoadjuvant therapies. Feasibility of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) with vein resection (RPD-VR) was shown, but no study provided a detailed description of the technical challenges associated with this formidable operation. Herein, we describe the trips and tricks for technically successful RPD-VR.

METHODS

The vascular techniques used in RPD-VR were borrowed from OPD-VR, as well as from our experience with robotic transplantation of both kidney and pancreas. Vein resection was classified into 4 types according to the international study group of pancreatic surgery. Each type of vein resection was described in detail and shown in a video.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and November 2021, a total of 783 pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, including 233 OPDs-VR (29.7%). RPD was performed in 256 patients (32.6%), and RPDs-VR in 36 patients (4.5% of all pancreatoduodenectomies; 15.4% of all pancreatoduodenectomies with vein resection; 14.0% of all RPDs). In RPD-VR vein resections were: 4 type 1 (11.1%), 10 type 2 (27.8%), 12 type 3 (33.3%) and 10 type 4 (27.8%). Vascular patches used in type 2 resections were made of peritoneum (n = 8), greater saphenous vein (n = 1), and deceased donor aorta (n = 1). Interposition grafts used in type 4 resections were internal left jugular vein (n = 8), venous graft from deceased donor (n = 1) and spiral saphenous vein graft (n = 1). There was one conversion to open surgery (2.8%). Ninety-day mortality was 8.3%. There was one (2.8%) partial vein thrombosis, treated with heparin infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

We have reported 36 technically successful RPDs-VR. We hope that the tips and tricks provided herein can contribute to safer implementation of RPD-VR. Based on our experience, and according to data from the literature, we strongly advise that RPD-VR is performed by expert surgeons at high volume centers.