Fistula Risk Score for Auditing Pancreatoduodenectomy: The Auditing-FRS.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2023
01 08 2023
Historique:
medline:
12
7
2023
pubmed:
16
7
2022
entrez:
15
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop a fistula risk score for auditing, to be able to compare postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy among hospitals. For proper comparisons of outcomes in surgical audits, case-mix variation should be accounted for. This study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Derivation of the score was performed with the data from 2014 to 2018 and validation with 2019 to 2020 data. The primary endpoint of the study was POPF (grade B or C). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for case-mix adjustment of known risk factors. In the derivation cohort, 3271 patients were included, of whom 479 (14.6%) developed POPF. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.66], higher body mass index (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10), a final diagnosis other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis (OR=2.41; 95% CI: 1.90-3.06), and a smaller duct diameter (OR=1.43/mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.32-1.55) were independently associated with POPF. Diabetes mellitus (OR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98) was independently associated with a decreased risk of POPF. Model discrimination was good with a C -statistic of 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort (n=913). Hospitals differed in particular in the proportion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis patients, ranging from 36.0% to 58.1%. The observed POPF risk per center ranged from 2.9% to 25.4%. The expected POPF rate based on the 5 risk factors ranged from 11.6% to 18.0% among hospitals. The auditing fistula risk score was successful in case-mix adjustment and enables fair comparisons of POPF rates among hospitals.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To develop a fistula risk score for auditing, to be able to compare postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy among hospitals.
BACKGROUND
For proper comparisons of outcomes in surgical audits, case-mix variation should be accounted for.
METHODS
This study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Derivation of the score was performed with the data from 2014 to 2018 and validation with 2019 to 2020 data. The primary endpoint of the study was POPF (grade B or C). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for case-mix adjustment of known risk factors.
RESULTS
In the derivation cohort, 3271 patients were included, of whom 479 (14.6%) developed POPF. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.66], higher body mass index (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10), a final diagnosis other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis (OR=2.41; 95% CI: 1.90-3.06), and a smaller duct diameter (OR=1.43/mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.32-1.55) were independently associated with POPF. Diabetes mellitus (OR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98) was independently associated with a decreased risk of POPF. Model discrimination was good with a C -statistic of 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort (n=913). Hospitals differed in particular in the proportion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/pancreatitis patients, ranging from 36.0% to 58.1%. The observed POPF risk per center ranged from 2.9% to 25.4%. The expected POPF rate based on the 5 risk factors ranged from 11.6% to 18.0% among hospitals.
CONCLUSIONS
The auditing fistula risk score was successful in case-mix adjustment and enables fair comparisons of POPF rates among hospitals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35837978
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005532
pii: 00000658-202308000-00033
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e272-e277Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Mackay TM, Gleeson EM, Wellner UF, et al. Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden: comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes. Surgery. 2020;169:396–402.
de Leede EM, Sibinga Mulder BG, Bastiaannet E, et al. Common variables in European pancreatic cancer registries: the introduction of the EURECCA pancreatic cancer project. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1414–1419.
van Rijssen LB, Koerkamp BG, Zwart MJ, et al. Nationwide prospective audit of pancreatic surgery: design, accuracy, and outcomes of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19:919–926.
Smits FJ, Verweij ME, Daamen LA, et al. Impact of complications after pancreatoduodenectomy on mortality, organ failure, hospital stay, and readmission: analysis of a nationwide audit. Ann Surg. 2020;275:e222–e228.
van Dongen JC, Suker M, Versteijne E, et al. Surgical complications in a multicenter randomized trial comparing preoperative chemoradiotherapy and immediate surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC Trial). Ann Surg. 2020;275:979–984.
Mungroop TH, van Rijssen LB, van Klaveren D, et al. Alternative fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): design and international external validation. Ann Surg. 2019;269:937–943.
Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1–14.
Roberts KJ, Sutcliffe RP, Marudanayagam R, et al. Scoring system to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a UK multicenter study. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1191–1197.
Shinde RS, Acharya R, Chaudhari VA, et al. External validation and comparison of the original, alternative and updated-alternative fistula risk scores for the prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Pancreatology. 2020;20:751–756.
Ryu Y, Shin SH, Park DJ, et al. Validation of original and alternative fistula risk scores in postoperative pancreatic fistula. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2019;26:354–359.
Grendar J, Jutric Z, Leal JN, et al. Validation of fistula risk score calculator in diverse North American HPB practices. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19:508–514.
Wellner UF, Kayser G, Lapshyn H, et al. A simple scoring system based on clinical factors related to pancreatic texture predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula preoperatively. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12:696–702.
Kantor O, Talamonti MS, Pitt HA, et al. Using the NSQIP Pancreatic Demonstration Project to derive a modified fistula risk score for preoperative risk stratification in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:816–825.
Mungroop TH, Klompmaker S, Wellner UF, et al. Updated alternative fistula risk score (ua-FRS) to include minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: pan-European validation. Ann Surg. 2021;273:334–340.
Kim JY, Park JS, Kim JK, et al. A model for predicting pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy based on the international study group of pancreatic surgery classification. Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2013;17:166–170.
Seykora TF, Ecker BL, McMillan MT, et al. The beneficial effects of minimizing blood loss in pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2019;270:147–157.
Strijker M, Mackay TM, Bonsing BA, et al. Establishing and coordinating a nationwide multidisciplinary study group: lessons Learned by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Ann Surg. 2020;271:e102–e104.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344–349.
Latenstein AEJ, Mackay TM, van der Geest LGM, et al. Effect of centralization and regionalization of pancreatic surgery on resection rates and survival. Br J Surg. 2021;108:826–833.
Smits FJ, Henry AC, van Eijck CH, et al. Care after pancreatic resection according to an algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive management of pancreatic fistula versus current practice (PORSCH-trial): design rationale of a nationwide stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial. Trials. 2020;21:389.
Bassi C, Marchegiani G, Dervenis C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery. 2017;161:584–591.
Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20–25.
Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761–768.
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery. 2011;149:680–688.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–196.
Hintze JL, Nelson RD. Violin plots: a box plot-density trace synergism. Am Stat. 1998;52:181–184.
Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:1925–1931.
Mayer EK, Bottle A, Rao C, et al. Funnel plots and their emerging application in surgery. Ann Surg. 2009;249:376–383.
McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, et al. Risk-adjusted outcomes of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: a model for performance evaluation. Ann Surg. 2016;264:344–352.
Gaujoux S, Cortes A, Couvelard A, et al. Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2010;148:15–23.
Mathur A, Pitt HA, Marine M, et al. Fatty pancreas: a factor in postoperative pancreatic fistula. Ann Surg. 2007;246:1058–1064.
Williamsson C, Stenvall K, Wennerblom J, et al. Predictive factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula—a Swedish nationwide register-based study. World J Surg. 2020;44:4207–4213.
van Roessel S, Soer EC, Daamen LA, et al. Preoperative misdiagnosis of pancreatic and periampullary cancer in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47:2525–2532.
Roberts KJ, Hodson J, Mehrzad H, et al. A preoperative predictive score of pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16:620–628.
Sanchez-Velazquez P, Muller X, Malleo G, et al. Benchmarks in pancreatic surgery: a novel tool for unbiased outcome comparisons. Ann Surg. 2019;270:211–218.
Rossler F, Sapisochin G, Song G, et al. Defining benchmarks for major liver surgery: a multicenter analysis of 5202 living liver donors. Ann Surg. 2016;264:492–500.
Schmidt HM, Gisbertz SS, Moons J, et al. Defining benchmarks for transthoracic esophagectomy: a multicenter analysis of total minimally invasive esophagectomy in low risk patients. Ann Surg. 2017;266:814–821.