Management and Outcomes of Pancreatic Resections Performed in High-Volume Referral and Low-Volume Community Hospitals Lead by Surgeons Who Shared the Same Mentor: The Importance of Training

Failure to Rescue After the Whipple: What Do We Know?

Mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy has improved over time. This progress is likely related to advancements in failure to rescue (FTR-the percentage of patients who die after developing a major complication). Several factors associated with FTR include patient-specific risks, development of certain postoperative complications, surgeon-specific factors, hospital-specific factors, rescue techniques, and regional differences. Efforts should be made to explore additional factors such as the influence of safety culture in the postoperative setting. Improvement in FTR may be better explored through randomized controlled postoperative management trials. In stable patients, management of complications by interventional radiology is preferred over reoperation.

Patient volume and clinical outcome after pancreatic cancer resection: A contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer remains a highly fatal disease with a 5-year overall survival of less than 10%. In seeking to improve clinical outcomes, there is ongoing debate about the weight that should be given to patient volume in centralization models. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the relationship between patient volume and clinical outcome after pancreatic resection for cancer in the contemporary literature.

METHODS

The Google Scholar, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from February 2015 until June 2021 for articles reporting patient volume and outcomes after pancreatic cancer resection.

RESULTS

There were 46 eligible studies over a 6-year period comprising 526,344 patients. The median defined annual patient volume thresholds varied: low-volume 0 (range 0-9), medium-volume 9 (range 3-29), high-volume 19 (range 9-97), and very-high-volume 28 (range 17-60) patients. The latter 2 were associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (P < .001), 90-day mortality (P < .001), overall postoperative morbidity (P = .005), failure to rescue rate (P = .006), and R0 resection rate (P = .008) compared with very-low/low-volume hospitals. Centralization was associated with lower 30-day mortality in 3 out of 5 studies, while postoperative morbidity was similar in 4 out of 4 studies. Median survival was longer in patients traveling greater distance for pancreatic resection in 2 out of 3 studies. Median and 5-year survival did not differ between urban and rural settings.

CONCLUSION

The contemporary literature confirms a strong relationship between patient volume and clinical outcome for pancreatic cancer resection despite expected bias toward more complex surgery in high-volume centers. These outcomes include lower mortality, morbidity, failure-to-rescue, and positive resection margin rates.

Mortality factors in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review. How important is the hospital volume?

BACKGROUND

How the extent of confounding adjustment impact (hospital) volume-outcome relationships in published studies on pancreatic cancer surgery is unknown.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies that investigated the relationship between volume and outcome using a risk adjustment procedure by querying the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Livivo, Medline and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last query: 2020/09/16). Importance of risk-adjusting covariates were assessed by effect size (odds ratio, OR) and statistical significance. The impact of covariate adjustment on hospital (or surgeon) volume effects was analyzed by regression and meta-regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 87 studies (75 based on administrative data) with nearly 1 million patients undergoing pancreatic surgery that included in total 71 covariates for risk adjustment. Of these, 33 (47%) had statistically significant effects on short-term mortality and 23 (32%) did not, while for 15 (21%) factors neither effect size nor statistical significance were reported. The most important covariates for short term mortality were patient-specific factors. Concerning the covariates, single comorbidities (OR: 4.6, 95% CI: 3.3 to 6.3) had the strongest impact on mortality followed by hospital volume (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 2.5 to 3.3) and the procedure (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.9 to 2.5). Among the single comorbidities, coagulopathy (OR: 4.5, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.2) and dementia (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 2.2 to 8.0) had the strongest influence on mortality. The regression analysis showed a significant decrease hospital volume effect with an increasing number of covariates considered (OR: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.10 to -0.03, P < 0.001), while such a relationship was not observed for surgeon volume (P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrated a significant inverse relationship between the extent of risk adjustment and the volume effect, suggesting the presence of unmeasured confounding and overestimation of volume effects. However, the conclusions are limited in that only the number of included covariates was considered, but not the effect size of the non-included covariates.

Improvement in Surgical Quality Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Increasing Case Volume in a Rural Hospital

BACKGROUND

The literature is replete with studies that define the nexus of quantity and quality in complex surgical operations. These observations have heralded a call for centralization of care to high-volume centers. The purpose of this study was to chronicle improvements in quality associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) as a rural hospital matures from a low- to very high-volume center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospective pancreatic surgery database was undertaken from July 2007 to June 2020. Annual periods were characterized as low (≤12/year), high (13-29/year), and very high volume (≥30/year). Data for the following quality benchmarks were aggregated and compared: length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmissions, 30-day mortality, and 1- and 3-year survival. A subgroup analysis was undertaken in those patients undergoing PD for adenocarcinoma detailing margin status and number of lymph nodes harvested. Outcomes were compared using the Fisher's exact and Student's t-test.

RESULTS

375 PD were completed over the 13-year period; 62.1% were undertaken for ductal adenocarcinoma. There was a significant decrease in LOS and 30-day readmissions as the institution matured toward very high volume. There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, 1- and 3-year survival, or margin negativity rates associated with volume. Extent of lymph node harvest significantly improved as institutional experience increased.

DISCUSSION

Our pancreatic surgery program matured rapidly from low to very high volume with institutional commitment and dedicated resources. As the institution matured, operational efficiencies and surgical quality improved. Not unexpectedly, biology trumped volume as reflected in 1- and 3-year survival rates.

Failure to Rescue After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Transatlantic Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after pancreatoduodenectomy across the Atlantic.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

FTR, or mortality after development of a major complication, is a quality metric originally created to compare hospital results. FTR has been studied in North American and Northern European patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). However, a direct comparison of FTR after PD between North America and Northern Europe has not been performed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent PD in North America, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany (GAPASURG dataset) were identified from their respective registries (2014-17). Patients who developed a major complication defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥3 or developed a grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) were included. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared between patients with and without FTR. Variables significant on univariable analysis were entered into a logistic regression for FTR.

RESULTS

Major complications occurred in 6188 of 22,983 patients (26.9%) after PD, and 504 (8.1%) patients had FTR. North American and Northern European patients with complications differed, and rates of FTR were lower in North America (5.4% vs 12%, P < 0.001). Fourteen factors from univariable analysis contributing to differences in patients who developed FTR were included in a logistic regression. On multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with FTR were age, American Society of Anesthesiology ≥3, Northern Europe, POPF, organ failure, life-threatening complication, nonradiologic intervention, and reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients with severe systemic diseases are more difficult to rescue. Failure to rescue is more common in Northern Europe than North America. In stable patients, management of complications by interventional radiology is preferred over reoperation.

Thirty-day complication rates do not differ by race among patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Black patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are less likely to receive multimodality treatment and have worse survival compared to White patients. However, little is known regarding racial differences in postoperative outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to determine if 30-day complication rates following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) differ by race.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent PD for PDAC from 2014 to 2016 within the ACS-NSQIP pancreatectomy-specific data set was performed. Primary outcomes were 30-day pancreas-specific and overall major complications.

RESULTS

A total of 6936 patients were identified, including 91.4% (N = 6337) White and 8.6% (N = 599) Black. Pathologic stage and rates of neoadjuvant therapy were similar among Whites and Blacks. Rates of pancreas-specific (23.9% vs. 23.1%, p = .88) and major postoperative complications (39.2% vs. 39.9%, p = .55) were similar between Whites and Blacks. By multivariable regression analysis, there was no association between race and odds of pancreas-specific complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.37) or overall major complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95-1.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing PD for PDAC, Black race is not associated with increased pancreas-specific or overall 30-day postoperative complications. Short-term postoperative outcomes do not appear to explain the increase in pancreatic cancer mortality among Black patients.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

Effects of volume on outcome in hepatobiliary surgery: a review with guidelines proposal

The positive relationship between volume and outcome in hepatobiliary surgery has been demonstrated for many years. As for other complex surgical procedures, both improved short- and long-term outcomes have been associated with a higher volume of procedures. However, whether the centralization of complex hepatobiliary procedures makes full sense because it should be associated with higher quality of care, as reported in the literature, precise criteria on what to centralize, where to centralize, and who should be entitled to perform complex procedures are still missing. Indeed, despite the generalized consensus on centralization in hepatobiliary surgery, this topic remains very complex because many determinants are involved in such a centralization process, of which some of them cannot be easily controlled. In the context of different health systems worldwide, such as national health systems and private insurance, there are different stakeholders that demand different needs: politicians, patients, surgeons, institutions and medical associations do not always have the same needs. Starting from a review of the literature on centralization in hepatobiliary surgery, we will propose some guidelines that, while not data-driven due to low evidence in the literature, will be based on good clinical practice.

Enhanced Recovery After Pancreatic Surgery Does One Size Really Fit All? A Clinical Score to Predict the Failure of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

The inability to comply with enhanced recovery protocols (ERp) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a real but understated issue. Our goal is to report our experience and a potential tool to predict ERp failure in order to better characterize this problem.

Methods

From January 1, 2014, to January 31, 2016, 205 consecutive patients underwent PD in our center and were managed according to an ERp. Failure to comply with postoperative protocol items was defined as any of: no active ambulation on postoperative day 1 (POD1); less than 4 h out of bed on POD2; removal of nasogastric tube and bladder catheter after POD1 and POD3, respectively; reintroduction of oral feeding after POD4; and continuation of intravenous infusions after POD4. Data were collected in a prospective database.

Results

Taking in consideration the number of failed items and the length of stay, we defined failure of the ERp as no compliance to two or more items. A total of 116 patients (56.6%) met this definition of failure. We created a predictive model consisting of age, BMI, operative time, and pancreatic stump consistency. These variables were independent predictors of failure (OR 1.03 [1.001–1.06] p = 0.01; OR 1.11 [1.01–1.22] p = 0.03; OR 1.004 [1.001–1.009] p = 0.02 and OR 2.89 [1.48–5.67] p = 0.002, respectively). Patient final score predicted the failure of the ERp with an area under the ROC curve of 0.747.

Conclusions

It seems to be possible to predict ERp failure after PD. Patients at high risk of failure may benefit more from a specific ERp.

Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery Improves Results: Review

Background and Aims:

The effect of operation volume on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been a subject of research since the 1990s. In several countries around the world, this has led to the centralization of pancreatic surgery. However, controversy persists as to the benefits of centralization and what the optimal operation volume for pancreatic surgery actually is. This review summarizes the data on the effect of centralization on mortality, complications, hospital facilities used, and costs regarding pancreatic surgery.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic librarian-assisted search was performed in PubMed covering the years from August 1999 to August 2019. All studies comparing results of open pancreatic resections from high- and low-volume centers were included. In total 44, published articles were analyzed.

Results:

Studies used a variety of different criteria for high-volume and low-volume centers, which hampers the evaluating of the effect of operation volume. However, mortality in high-volume centers is consistently reported to be lower than in low-volume centers. In addition, failure to rescue critically ill patients is more common in low-volume centers. Cost-effectiveness has also been evaluated in the literature. Length of hospital stay in particular has been reported to be shorter in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers.

Conclusion:

The effect of centralization on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been under active research and the beneficial effect of it is associated especially with better short-term prognosis after surgery.

Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery in Europe

BACKGROUND

The objective of this article is a review and an analysis of the current state of centralization of pancreatic surgery in Europe. Numerous recent publications demonstrate higher postoperative in-hospital mortality rates in low-volume clinics after pancreatic resection than previously assumed due to their not publishing significantly worse outcomes when compared to high-volume centres. Although the benefits of centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume centres have been demonstrated in many studies, numerous countries have so far failed to establish centralization in their respective health care systems.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the Medline database for studies concerning centralization of pancreatic surgery in Europe was conducted. The studies were reviewed independently for previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included 14 studies with a total of 117,634 patients. All data were extracted from or provided by health insurance company or governmental registry databases.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of the 14 studies demonstrate an improvement in their respective outcome related to volume. Twelve studies showed a significantly lower postoperative mortality rate in the highest annual volume group in comparison to overall postoperative mortality rate in the whole patient cohort.

CONCLUSION

As the available data indicate, most European countries have so far failed to establish centralization of pancreatic surgery to high-volume centres due to numerous reasons. Considering a plateau in survival rates of patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer in Europe during the last 15 years, this review enforces the worldwide plea for centralization to lower post-operative mortality after pancreatic surgery.