Clinical relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: when negative amylase levels tell the truth.


Journal

Updates in surgery
ISSN: 2038-3312
Titre abrégé: Updates Surg
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101539818

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Historique:
received: 11 05 2020
accepted: 02 03 2021
pubmed: 27 3 2021
medline: 16 10 2021
entrez: 26 3 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Drain Amylase level are routinely determined to diagnose pancreatic fistula after Pancreatocoduodenectomy. Consensus is lacking regarding the cut-off value of amylase to diagnosis clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF). The present study proposes a model based on Amylase Value in the Drain (AVD) measured in the first three postoperative days to predict a POPF. Amylase cut-offs were selected from a previous published systematic review and the accuracy were validated in a multicentre database from 12 centres in 2 countries. The present study defined POPF the 2016 ISGPS criteria (3 times the upper limit of normal serum amylase). A learning machine method was used to correlate AVD with the diagnosis of POPF. Overall, 454 (27%) of 1638 patients developed POPF. Machine learning excluded a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulae with an AUC of 0.962 (95% CI 0.940-0.984) in the first five postoperative days. An AVD at a cut-off of 270 U/L in 2 days in the first three postoperative days excluded a POPF with an AUC of 0.869 (CI 0.81-0.90, p < 0.0001). A single AVD in the first three postoperative days may not exclude POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy. The levels should be monitored until day 3 and have two negative values before removing the drain. In the group with a positive level, the drain should be kept in and AVD monitored until postoperative day five.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33770412
doi: 10.1007/s13304-021-01020-8
pii: 10.1007/s13304-021-01020-8
doi:

Substances chimiques

Amylases EC 3.2.1.-

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1391-1397

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Informations de copyright

© 2021. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).

Références

Adachi E, Harimoto N, Yamashita Y et al (2013) Pancreatic leakage test in pancreaticoduodenectomy: relation to degree of pancreatic fibrosis, pancreatic amylase level and pancreatic fistula. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi 104(12):490–498
Chen JY, Feng J, Wang XQ, Cai SW, Dong JH, Chen YL (2015) Risk scoring system and predictor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol WJG 21(19):5926–5933
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i19.5926
Molinari E, Bassi C, Salvia R et al (2007) Amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection as predictive factor of postoperative pancreatic fistula: results of a prospective study in 137 patients. Ann Surg 246(2):281–287
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180caa42f
Shamali A, Shelat V, Jaber B et al (2017) Impact of obesity on short and long term results following a pancreatico-duodenectomy. Int J Surg (London, England) 42:191–196
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.04.058
Shamali A, McCrudden R, Bhandari P et al (2016) Pancreaticoduodenectomy for nonampullary duodenal lesions: indications and results. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 28(12):1388–1393
doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000738
Fuks D, Piessen G, Huet E et al (2009) Life-threatening postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade C) after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, prognosis, and risk factors. Am J Surg 197(6):702–709
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.03.004
Abu Hilal M, Malik HZ, Hamilton-Burke W, Verbeke C, Menon KV (2009) Modified Cattell’s pancreaticojejunostomy, buttressing for soft pancreases and an isolated biliopancreatic loop are safety measurements that improve outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a pilot study. HPB Off J Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc 11(2):154–160
doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00028.x
Dugalic VD, Knezevic DM, Obradovic VN et al (2014) Drain amylase value as an early predictor of pancreatic fistula after cephalic duodenopancreatectomy. World J Gastroenterol WJG 20(26):8691–8699
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8691
Kawai M, Kondo S, Yamaue H et al (2011) Predictive risk factors for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula analyzed in 1239 patients with pancreaticoduodenectomy: multicenter data collection as a project study of pancreatic surgery by the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18(4):601–608
doi: 10.1007/s00534-011-0373-x
Facy O, Chalumeau C, Poussier M, Binquet C, Rat P, Ortega-Deballon P (2012) Diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Br J Surg 99(8):1072–1075
doi: 10.1002/bjs.8774
Kong J, Gananadha S, Hugh TJ, Samra JS (2008) Pancreatoduodenectomy: role of drain fluid analysis in the management of pancreatic fistula. ANZ J Surg 78(4):240–244
doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04428.x
Cirocchi R, Graziosi L, Sanguinetti A et al (2015) Can the measurement of amylase in drain after distal pancreatectomy predict post-operative pancreatic fistula? Int J Surg (London, England) 21(Suppl 1):S30–S33
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.06.048
Fong ZV, Fernandez-Del CC (2016) Early drain amylase value predicts the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 266:e80
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001690
Israel JS, Rettammel RJ, Leverson GE et al (2014) Does postoperative drain amylase predict pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy? J Am Coll Surg 218(5):978–987
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.01.048
Yamaguchi M, Nakano H, Midorikawa T, Yoshizawa Y, Sanada Y, Kumada K (2003) Prediction of pancreatic fistula by amylase levels of drainage fluid on the first day after pancreatectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 50(52):1155–1158
Caputo D, Angeletti S, Ciccozzi M et al (2020) Role of drain amylase levels assay and routinary postoperative day 3 abdominal CT scan in prevention of complications and management of surgical drains after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Updat Surg 72(3):727–741
doi: 10.1007/s13304-020-00784-9
Denbo JW, Orr WS, Zarzaur BL, Behrman SW (2012) Toward defining grade C pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome. HPB Off J Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc 14(9):589–593
doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00486.x
Lim C, Dokmak S, Cauchy F, Aussilhou B, Belghiti J, Sauvanet A (2013) Selective policy of no drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy is a valid option in patients at low risk of pancreatic fistula: a case-control analysis. World J Surg 37(5):1021–1027
doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-1947-3
Vallance AE, Young AL, Macutkiewicz C, Roberts KJ, Smith AM (2015) Calculating the risk of a pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review. HPB Off J Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc 17(11):1040–1048
doi: 10.1111/hpb.12503
Davidson TB, Yaghoobi M, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS (2017) Amylase in drain fluid for the diagnosis of pancreatic leak in post-pancreatic resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD012009
Giglio MC, Spalding DR, Giakoustidis A et al (2016) Meta-analysis of drain amylase content on postoperative day 1 as a predictor of pancreatic fistula following pancreatic resection. Br J Surg 103(4):328–336
doi: 10.1002/bjs.10090
Lu X, Wang X, Fang Y et al (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of pancreatic amylase value on postoperative day 1 after pancreatic resection to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(5):e2569
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002569
Giovinazzo F, Butturini G, Salvia R et al (2011) Drain management after pancreatic resection: state of the art. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18(6):779–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-011-0431-4
doi: 10.1007/s00534-011-0431-4
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C et al (2017) The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014
Kambakamba P, Mannil M, Herrera PE et al (2020) The potential of machine learning to predict postoperative pancreatic fistula based on preoperative, non-contrast-enhanced CT: a proof-of-principle study. Surgery 167(2):448–454
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.09.019
Janik M, Bossew P, Kurihara O (2018) Machine learning methods as a tool to analyse incomplete or irregularly sampled radon time series data. Sci Total Environ 630:1155–1167
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.233
Bertens KA, Crown A, Clanton J et al (2017) What is a better predictor of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD): postoperative day one drain amylase (POD1DA) or the fistula risk score (FRS)? HPB Off J Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc 19(1):75–81
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.10.001
Partelli S, Tamburrino D, Crippa S, Facci E, Zardini C, Falconi M (2014) Evaluation of a predictive model for pancreatic fistula based on amylase value in drains after pancreatic resection. Am J Surg 208(4):634–639
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.03.011
Tsujie M, Nakamori S, Miyamoto A et al (2012) Risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy - patients with low drain amylase level on postoperative day 1 are safe from developing pancreatic fistula. Hepatogastroenterology 59(120):2657–2660
Mungroop TH, van Rijssen LB, van Klaveren D et al (2019) Alternative Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): Design and International External Validation. Ann Surg 269(5):937–943. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002620
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002620
Linnemann RJA, Patijn GA, van Rijssen LB et al (2019) The role of abdominal drainage in pancreatic resection—a multicenter validation study for early drain removal. Pancreatology 19(6):888–896
doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2019.07.041

Auteurs

Francesco Giovinazzo (F)

Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, E Level, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO166YD, UK.
General Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Ralph Linneman (R)

Department of Surgery, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

Giulio Valentino Dalla Riva (GVD)

University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Daniele Greener (D)

Acute Medicine, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Porthsmouth, UK.

Christopher Morano (C)

Master of Data Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Gijs A Patijn (GA)

Department of Surgery, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

Mark G H Besselink (MGH)

Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs (VB)

Department of Surgery, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

Mohammad Abu Hilal (M)

Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, E Level, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO166YD, UK. abuhilal9@gmail.com.
Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy. abuhilal9@gmail.com.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH