Referring Patients to Expert Centers After Pancreatectomy Is Too Late to Improve Outcome. Inter-hospital Transfer Analysis in Nationwide Study of 19,938 Patients

Retromesenteric omental flap as arterial coverage in pancreaticoduodenectomy: A novel technique to prevent postpancreatectomy hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage occurs in 10% to 15% of patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy, mainly in association with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. Prevention of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage by arterial coverage with a round ligament plasty or an omental flap is controversial. This study assessed the impact of arterial coverage with an original retromesenteric omental flap on postpancreatectomy hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 812 open pancreaticoduodenectomies (2012-2021) and compared 146 procedures with arterial coverage using retromesenteric omental flap to 666 pancreaticoduodenectomies without arterial coverage. The Fistula Risk Score was calculated. The primary endpoint was a 90-day clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage rate according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery classification.

RESULTS

There were more patients with a Fistula Risk Score ≥7 in the arterial coverage-retromesenteric omental flap group: 18 (12%) versus 48 (7%) (P < .01). Clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage was less frequent in the arterial coverage- retromesenteric omental flap group than in the no arterial coverage group: 5 (3%) versus 66 (10%), respectively (P = .01). Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 28 (19%) patients in the arterial coverage- retromesenteric omental flap group compared with 165 (25%) in the no arterial coverage group (P = .001). There were fewer reoperations for postpancreatectomy hemorrhage or postoperative pancreatic fistula in the arterial coverage- retromesenteric omental flap group: 1 (0.7%) versus 32 (5%) in the no arterial coverage group (P = .023). In multivariate analysis, arterial coverage with retromesenteric omental flap was an independent protective factor of clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (odds ratio 0.33; 95% confidence interval [0.12-0.92], P = .034) whereas postoperative pancreatic fistula of any grade (odds ratio = 10.1; 95% confidence interval: 5.1-20.3, P < .001) was predictive of this complication.

CONCLUSION

Arterial coverage with retromesenteric omental flap can reduce rates of clinically relevant postpancreatectomy hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. This easy and costless technique should be prospectively evaluated to confirm these results.

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.

Complications and failure-to-rescue after pancreatectomy and hospital participation in the targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry

BACKGROUND

More than 700 hospitals participate in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, but most pancreatectomies are performed in 165 centers participating in the pancreas procedure-targeted registry. We hypothesized that these hospitals ("targeted hospitals") might provide more specialized care than those not participating ("standard hospitals").

METHODS

The 2014 to 2019 pancreas-targeted and standard American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry were reviewed regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative outcomes using standard univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality and serious morbidity.

RESULTS

The registry included 30,357 pancreatoduodenectomies (80% in targeted hospitals) and 14,800 distal pancreatectomies (76% in targeted hospitals). Preoperative and intraoperative characteristics of patients treated at targeted versus standard hospitals were comparable. On multivariable analysis, pancreatoduodenectomies performed at targeted hospitals were associated with a 39% decrease in 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.75), 17% decrease in serious morbidity (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.89), and 41% decrease in failure-to-rescue (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.74). These differences did not apply to distal pancreatectomies. Participation in the targeted registry was associated with higher rates of optimal surgery for both pancreatoduodenectomy (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.41) and distal pancreatectomy (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.30).

CONCLUSION

Mortality and failure-to-rescue rates after pancreatoduodenectomy in targeted hospitals were nearly half of rates in standard American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hospitals. Further research should delineate factors underlying this effect and highlight opportunities for improvement.

Modified Appleby procedure for locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma: A primer for the radiologist

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most prevalent pancreatic neoplasm accounting for more than 90% of pancreatic malignancies. Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy remains the only available curative strategy for patients with PDAC. Despite improvements in both chemotherapy regimen and surgical care, body/neck PDAC still conveys a poor prognosis because of the vicinity of major vascular structures, including celiac trunk, which favors insidious disease spread at the time of diagnosis. Body/neck PDAC involving the celiac trunk is considered locally advanced PDAC in most guidelines and therefore not eligible for upfront resection. However, a more aggressive surgical approach (i.e., distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy and en-bloc celiac trunk resection [DP-CAR]) was recently proposed to offer hope for cure in selected patients with locally advanced body/neck PDAC responsive to induction therapy at the cost of higher morbidity. The so-called "modified Appleby procedure" is highly demanding and requires optimal preoperative staging as well as appropriate patient preparation for surgery (i.e., preoperative arterial embolization). Herein, we review current evidence regarding DP-CAR indications and outcomes as well as the critical role of diagnostic and interventional radiology in patient preparation before DP-CAR, and early identification and management of DP-CAR complications.

Systemic causes are important risk factors for failure after unscheduled colorectal revision surgery

BACKGROUND

The rates of unscheduled revision surgery (URS) after colorectal surgery and failure to rescue-surgical (FTR-s) are 2.4% and 11-17% respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate the causes of URS lethality to reduce this rate after colorectal surgery.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2021, 337 surgeons collected 547 URS. Type of procedure, time course, diagnostic and detection means, time to decision, time to complication(s), causes of URS, delay of URS, and death were recorded and allowed for multivariate systemic analysis of risk factors for death (FTR-s) after URS. Systemic causes of delay were analyzed as assessment of urgency, communication, skills, organization of the operative program, and transport.

RESULTS

The two main causes of URS were infectious (66% of which 50% by fistula or anastomotic release) and vascular (18%). The rate of FTRs was 10%. The systemic causes rate of FTR-s were 35%. The FTRs were related to the patient (ASA score 3-4: RR: 6 [1-40]; age: RR: 1.05 [1-1.1]), to the surgical procedure (laparotomy: RR: 4.5 [1.6-12]) and to the systemic causes responsible for the delay in the realization of URS (RR: 4.1 [1.4-12]).

CONCLUSION

By avoiding systemic causes, more than one third of the deaths from FTR-s after colorectal surgery could be avoided.

Survival variability across hospitals after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A multilevel survival analysis on a high-resolution population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Resection is the cornerstone of curative management for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Hospital surgical volume influence post-operative mortality. Few is known about impact on survival.

METHODS

Population included 763 patients resected for PDAC within the 4 French digestive tumor registries between 2000 and 2014. Spline method was used to determine annual surgical volume thresholds influencing survival. A multilevel survival regression model was used to study center effect.

RESULTS

Population was divided into three groups: low-volume (LVC) (<41 hepatobiliary/pancreatic procedures/year), medium-volume (MVC) (41-233) and high-volume centers (HVC) (>233). Patients in LVC were older (p = 0.02), had a lower rate of disease-free margins (76.7% vs. 77.2% and 69.5%, p = 0.028) and a higher post-operative mortality than in MVC and HVC (12.5% and 7.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.004). Median survival was higher in HVC than in other centers (25 vs. 15.2 months, p < 0.0001). Survival variance attributable to center effect accounted for 3.7% of total variance. In multilevel survival analysis, surgical volume explained the inter-hospital survival heterogeneity (non-significant variance after adding the volume to the model p = 0.3). Patients resected in HVC had a better survival than in LVC (HR 0.64 [0.50-0.82], p < 0.0001). There was no difference between MVC and HVC.

CONCLUSION

Regarding center effect, individual characteristics had little impact on survival variability across hospitals. Hospital volume was a major contributor to the center effect. Given the difficulty of centralizing pancreatic surgery, it would be wise to determine which factors would indicate management in a HVC.

Hospital Designations and Their Impact on Guideline-Concordant Care and Survival in Pancreatic Cancer. Do They Matter?

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) requires complex multidisciplinary care. European evidence suggests potential benefit from regionalization, however, data characterizing the ideal setting in the United States are sparse. Our study compares the significance of four hospital designations on guideline-concordant care (GCC) and overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Texas Cancer Registry was queried for 17,071 patients with PDAC treated between 2004 and 2015. Clinical data were correlated with hospital designations: NCI designated (NCI), high volume (HV), safety net (SNH), and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer accredited (ACS). Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to assess associations with GCC [on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations]. Cox regression analysis assessed survival.

RESULTS

Only 43% of patients received GCC. NCI had the largest associated risk reduction (HR 0.61, CI 0.58-0.65), followed by HV (HR 0.87, CI 0.83-0.90) and ACS (HR 0.91, CI 0.87-0.95). GCC was associated with a survival benefit in the full (HR 0.75, CI 0.69-0.81) and resected cohort (HR 0.74, CI 0.68-0.80). NCI (OR 1.52, CI 1.37-1.70), HV (OR 1.14, CI 1.05-1.23), and SNH (OR 0.78, CI 0.68-0.91) all correlated with receipt of GCC. For resected patients, ACS (OR 0.63, CI 0.50-0.79) and SNH (OR 0.50, CI 0.33-0.75) correlate with GCC.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 43% of patients received GCC. Treatment at NCI and HV correlated with improved GCC and survival. Including GCC as a metric in accreditation standards could impact survival for patients with PDAC.

Root-Cause Analysis of Mortality Following Pancreatic Resection (CARE Study): A Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Analyze a multicenter cohort of deceased patients after pancreatectomy in high-volume centers in France by performing a root-cause analysis (RCA) to define the avoidable mortality rate.

BACKGROUND

Despite undeniable progress in pancreatic surgery for over a century, postoperative outcome remain particularly worse and could be further improved.

METHODS

All patients undergoing pancreatectomy between January 2015 and December 2018 and died post-operatively within 90 days after were included. RCA was performed in two stages: the first being the exhaustive collection of data concerning each patient from preoperative to death and the second being blind analysis of files by an independent expert committee. A typical root cause of death was defined with the identification of avoidable death.

RESULTS

Among the 3195 patients operated on in nine participating centers, 140 (4.4%) died within 90 days after surgery. After the exclusion of 39 patients, 101 patients were analyzed. The cause of death was identified in 90% of cases. After RCA, mortality was preventable in 30% of cases, mostly consequently to a preoperative assessment (disease evaluation) or a deficient postoperative management (notably pancreatic fistula and hemorrhage). An inappropriate intraoperative decision was incriminated in 10% of cases. The comparative analysis showed that young age and arterial resection, especially unplanned, were often associated with avoidable mortality.

CONCLUSION

One third of postoperative mortality after pancreatectomy seems to be avoidable, even if the surgery is performed in high volume centers. These data suggest that improving postoperative pancreatectomy outcome requires a multidisciplinary, rigorous and personalized management.

Complications After Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: Benefits and Costs Associated with Inter-hospital Transfer Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Inter-hospital transfer (IHT) may help reduce failure-to-rescue (FTR) by transferring patients to centers with a higher level of expertise than the index hospital. We sought to identify factors associated with an IHT and examine if IHT was associated with improved outcomes after complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were utilized to identify patients with >1 postoperative complication following resection for esophageal, pancreatic, liver, or colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2017. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of different factors with the chance of IHT, as well as the impact of IHT on failure-to-rescue (FTR) and expenditures.

RESULTS

Among 39,973 patients with >1 postoperative complications, 3090 (7.7%) patients were transferred to a secondary hospital. The median LOS at the index hospital prior to IHT was 10 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Patients who underwent IHT more often had experienced multiple complications at the index hospital compared with non-IHT patients (57.7% vs. 38.9%) (p<0.001). Transferred patients more commonly had undergone surgery at a low-volume index hospital (n=218, 60.2%) compared with non-IHT (n=10,351, 25.9%) patients (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume remained strongly associated with transfer to an acute care hospital (ACH) (OR 5.53; 95% CI 3.91-7.84; p<0.001), as did multiple complications (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.56-2.57). The incidence of FTR was much higher among IHT-ACH patients (20.2%) versus non-IHT patients (11.5%) (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11-2.05) (p<0.001). Medicare expenditures were higher among patients who had IHT-ACH ($72.1k USD; IQR, $48.1k-$116.7k) versus non-IHT ($38.5k USD; IQR, $28.1k-$59.2k USD) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Approximately 1 in 13 patients had an IHT after complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery. IHT was associated with high rates of FTR, which was more pronounced among patients who underwent surgery at an index low-volume hospital. IHT was associated with higher overall CMS expenditures.

How to reduce failure to rescue after visceral surgery?

Mortality after visceral surgery has decreased owing to progress in surgical techniques, anesthesiology and intensive care. Mortality occurs in 5-10% of patients after major surgery and remains a topic of interest. However, the ratio of mortality after postoperative complications in relation to overall complications varies between hospitals because of failure to rescue at the time of the complication. There are multiple factors that lead to complication-related mortality: they are patient-related, disease-related, but are related, above all, to the timeliness of diagnosis of the complication, the organisational aspects of management in private or public hospitals, hospital volume that corresponds to the centralisation of initial management or to the concept of referral centre in case of complications, to the team spirit, to communication between the health care providers and to the management of the complication itself. Several organisational advances are to be considered, such as the development of shorter hospitalisations and notably ambulatory surgery, as well as enhanced recovery programs. Remote monitoring and the contribution of artificial intelligence must also be evaluated in this context. The reduction of mortality after visceral surgery rests on several tactics: prevention of potentially lethal complications, the all-important reduction of failure to rescue, and risk management before, during and after hospitalisations that are increasingly shorter.

Facility volume-survival relationship in patients with early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that neoadjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival compared with upfront pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Treatment at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers is associated with improved short-term postoperative outcomes compared with low-volume centers. We compared overall survival of patients with early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant therapy before resection stratified by facility volume.

METHODS

Patients with clinical T0 to T2 pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant therapy before pancreatoduodenectomy were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). High-volume pancreatic surgery centers performed ≥36 pancreatectomies/year. Patients were matched 1:1 by propensity score. Pathologic outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

Before matching, 1,449 patients were treated at low-volume centers and 250 at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. After matching, there were 177 patients per group. High-volume pancreatic surgery centers were more commonly academic/research facilities (99.4% vs 54.0%; P < .001), and patients traveled greater distances (65 vs 13 miles; P < .001). Time from diagnosis to neoadjuvant therapy and surgery was similar. Treatment at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers was associated with shorter duration of stay (7 vs 8 days; P = .003) and lower 90-day mortality rate after pancreatoduodenectomy (0.0% vs 5.0%; P = .01). Patients treated at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers had improved overall survival (36.3 vs 29.4 months; P = .03; hazard ratio 0.73). On subset analysis of academic/research facilities, high-volume pancreatic surgery centers remained associated with shorter duration of stay, lower 90-day mortality, and greater overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma received care at low-volume centers. Treatment at high-volume pancreatic surgery centers was associated with improved overall survival and short-term postoperative outcomes.