Pancreaticojejunostomy With Externalized Stent vs Pancreaticogastrostomy With Externalized Stent for Patients With High-Risk Pancreatic Anastomosis: A Single-Center, Phase 3, Randomized Clinical Trial.
Adult
Aged
Female
Gastrointestinal Agents
/ therapeutic use
Gastrostomy
/ methods
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Octreotide
/ therapeutic use
Pancreatic Fistula
/ prevention & control
Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Pancreaticojejunostomy
/ methods
Postoperative Complications
/ prevention & control
Risk Factors
Stents
Journal
JAMA surgery
ISSN: 2168-6262
Titre abrégé: JAMA Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2020
01 04 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
27
2
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
entrez:
27
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The operative scenarios with the highest postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) risk represent situations in which fistula prevention and mitigation strategies have the strongest potential to affect surgical outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Evidence from studies providing risk stratification is lacking. To investigate whether pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) or pancreaticogastrostomy (PG), both with externalized transanastomotic stent, is the best reconstruction method for patients at high risk of POPF after pancreaticoduodenectomy. A single-center, phase 3, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, The Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy, from July 12, 2017, through March 15, 2019, among adults undergoing elective pancreaticoduodenectomy and considered at high risk for pancreatic fistula after intraoperative assessment of the fistula risk score, some of whom were randomized to undergo PG or PJ. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Intervention consisted of PJ or PG, both with externalized transanastomotic stent and octreotide omission. The primary end point was POPF. The secondary end points were Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher morbidity, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, and average complication burden. A total of 604 patients were screened for eligibility; 82 were at high risk for POPF (fistula risk score, 7-10), and 72 were randomized undergo PG (n = 36; 20 men and 16 women; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 23-82]) or PJ (n = 36; 26 men and 10 women; median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 35-79]). There was no significant difference in the incidence of POPF between patients who underwent PG and patients who underwent PJ (18 [50.0%] vs 14 [38.9%]; P = .48), but for patients who developed a POPF, the mean (SD) average complication burden was lower for those who underwent PJ than for those who underwent PG (0.25 [0.13] vs 0.39 [0.17]; P = .04). The rates of postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (14 [38.9%] in the PG group vs 9 [25.0%] in the PJ group; P = .31) and delayed gastric emptying (16 [44.4%] in the PG group vs 18 [50.0%] in the PJ group; P = .81) were similar, but patients who underwent PG presented with a significantly higher incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher morbidity than those who underwent PJ (17 [47.2%] vs 8 [22.2%]; P = .047). Among patients at the highest risk for POPF, those who underwent PG or PJ experienced similar rates of POPF. However, PG was associated with an increased incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher morbidity and with an increased average complication burden for the patients who developed a POPF. For patients at high risk for pancreatic fistula, PJ with the use of externalized stent and octreotide omission should be considered the most appropriate technical strategy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03212196.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32101272
pii: 2761888
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.6035
pmc: PMC7160692
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gastrointestinal Agents
0
Octreotide
RWM8CCW8GP
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03212196']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
313-321Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jun;14(7):655-62
pubmed: 23643139
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Surgery. 2005 Jul;138(1):8-13
pubmed: 16003309
Br J Surg. 2013 Nov;100(12):1597-605
pubmed: 24264781
HPB (Oxford). 2014 Aug;16(8):713-22
pubmed: 24467711
HPB (Oxford). 2016 Mar;18(3):229-35
pubmed: 27017162
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Surgery. 2007 Jul;142(1):20-5
pubmed: 17629996
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
J Gastrointest Surg. 2006 Jul-Aug;10(7):1072-80
pubmed: 16983793
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2018 Jun;28(3):139-146
pubmed: 29683997
Br J Surg. 2012 Apr;99(4):524-31
pubmed: 22497024
Surgery. 2017 Feb;161(2):365-372
pubmed: 27692778
Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):584-591
pubmed: 28040257
Ann Surg. 2015 Mar;261(3):527-36
pubmed: 25268299
Ann Surg. 2018 Nov;268(5):815-822
pubmed: 30004917
Surgery. 2007 Nov;142(5):761-8
pubmed: 17981197
Ann Surg. 2018 Apr;267(4):608-616
pubmed: 28594741
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992 Oct;13(10):606-8
pubmed: 1334988
Can J Surg. 2015 Jun;58(3):154-9
pubmed: 25799130
Ann Surg. 2016 Mar;263(3):440-9
pubmed: 26135690
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Dec;17(12):1145-54
pubmed: 26373586
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Dec;20(12):2052-2062
pubmed: 27730401
HPB (Oxford). 2016 Aug;18(8):642-51
pubmed: 27485058
Ann Surg. 2010 Aug;252(2):207-14
pubmed: 20622661
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Mar;25(3):626-637
pubmed: 29214453
Ann Surg. 2011 May;253(5):879-85
pubmed: 21368658
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Jan;216(1):1-14
pubmed: 23122535
Ann Surg. 2008 Dec;248(6):930-8
pubmed: 19092337
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Sep;16(9):1686-95
pubmed: 22744638