Outcome of Pancreatic Surgery During the First 6 Years of a Mandatory Audit Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group.
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:
23
7
2022
entrez:
22
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To describe outcome after pancreatic surgery in the first 6 years of a mandatory nationwide audit. Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, efforts have been made to improve outcome after pancreatic surgery. These include collaborative projects, clinical auditing, and implementation of an algorithm for early recognition and management of postoperative complications. However, nationwide changes in outcome over time have not yet been described. This nationwide cohort study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy from the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (January 2014-December 2019). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between 3 time periods (2014-2015, 2016-2017, and 2018-2019). Short-term surgical outcome was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Primary endpoints were failure to rescue (FTR) and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 5345 patients were included, of whom 4227 after PD and 1118 after distal pancreatectomy. After PD, FTR improved from 13% to 7.4% [odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.80, P <0.001] and in-hospital mortality decreased from 4.1% to 2.4% (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86, P =0.001), despite operating on more patients with age >75 years (18%-22%, P =0.006), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 (19%-31%, P <0.001) and Charlson comorbidity score ≥2 (24%-34%, P <0.001). The rates of textbook outcome (57%-55%, P =0.283) and major complications remained stable (31%-33%, P =0.207), whereas complication-related intensive care admission decreased (13%-9%, P =0.002). After distal pancreatectomy, improvements in FTR from 8.8% to 5.9% (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.30-1.37, P =0.253) and in-hospital mortality from 1.6% to 1.3% (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.72, P =0.711) were not statistically significant. During the first 6 years of a nationwide audit, in-hospital mortality and FTR after PD improved despite operating on more high-risk patients. Several collaborative efforts may have contributed to these improvements.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To describe outcome after pancreatic surgery in the first 6 years of a mandatory nationwide audit.
BACKGROUND
Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, efforts have been made to improve outcome after pancreatic surgery. These include collaborative projects, clinical auditing, and implementation of an algorithm for early recognition and management of postoperative complications. However, nationwide changes in outcome over time have not yet been described.
METHODS
This nationwide cohort study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy from the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (January 2014-December 2019). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between 3 time periods (2014-2015, 2016-2017, and 2018-2019). Short-term surgical outcome was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Primary endpoints were failure to rescue (FTR) and in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS
Overall, 5345 patients were included, of whom 4227 after PD and 1118 after distal pancreatectomy. After PD, FTR improved from 13% to 7.4% [odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.80, P <0.001] and in-hospital mortality decreased from 4.1% to 2.4% (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86, P =0.001), despite operating on more patients with age >75 years (18%-22%, P =0.006), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 (19%-31%, P <0.001) and Charlson comorbidity score ≥2 (24%-34%, P <0.001). The rates of textbook outcome (57%-55%, P =0.283) and major complications remained stable (31%-33%, P =0.207), whereas complication-related intensive care admission decreased (13%-9%, P =0.002). After distal pancreatectomy, improvements in FTR from 8.8% to 5.9% (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.30-1.37, P =0.253) and in-hospital mortality from 1.6% to 1.3% (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.72, P =0.711) were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
During the first 6 years of a nationwide audit, in-hospital mortality and FTR after PD improved despite operating on more high-risk patients. Several collaborative efforts may have contributed to these improvements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35866656
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005628
pii: 00000658-202308000-00017
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
260-266Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Sánchez-Velázquez P, Muller X, Malleo G, et al. Benchmarks in pancreatic surgery: a novel tool for unbiased outcome comparisons. Ann Surg. 2019;270:211–218.
Swanson RS, Pezzi CM, Mallin K, et al. The 90-day mortality after pancreatectomy for cancer is double the 30-day mortality: more than 20,000 resections from the national cancer data base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:4059–4067.
Polonski A, Izbicki JR, Uzunoglu FG. Centralization of pancreatic surgery in Europe. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:2081–2092.
Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Complications, failure to rescue, and mortality with major inpatient surgery in medicare patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250:1029–1034.
Gleeson EM, Pitt HA, Mackay TM, et al. Failure to rescue after pancreatoduodenectomy: a transatlantic analysis. Ann Surg. 2021;274:459–466.
van Rijssen LB, Zwart MJ, van Dieren S, et al. Variation in hospital mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy is related to failure to rescue rather than major complications: a nationwide audit. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20:759–767.
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.
van der Geest LG, Besselink MG, Busch OR, et al. Elderly patients strongly benefit from centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2002–2009.
de Wilde RF, Besselink MG, van der Tweel I, et al. Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality. Br J Surg. 2012;99:404–410.
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128–1137.
van der Geest LG, van Rijssen LB, Molenaar IQ, et al. Volume-outcome relationships in pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18:317–324.
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 and rationale of a nationwide stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial. Trials. 2020;21:389.
Pitt HA, Kilbane M, Strasberg SM, et al. ACS-NSQIP has the potential to create an HPB-NSQIP option. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11:405–413.
Wellner UF, Klinger C, Lehmann K, et al. The pancreatic surgery registry (StuDoQ|Pancreas) of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) – presentation and systematic quality evaluation. Trials. 2017;18:163.
Tingstedt B, Andersson B, Jönsson C, et al. First results from the Swedish National Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer Registry. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21:34–42.
van der Heijde N, Vissers FL, Boggi U, et al. Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23:566–574.
Maharaj AD, Holland JF, Scarborough RO, et al. The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR): a clinical quality registry to monitor and improve care in upper gastrointestinal cancers. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e031434.
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.
Beane JD, Borrebach JD, Zureikat AH, et al. Optimal pancreatic surgery: are we making progress in North America? Ann Surg. 2021;274:e355–e363.
RIVM. Handreiking ontsluiting patientgegevens voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek 2019-09-03, 2019. Accessed December 27, 2021. https://www.rivm.nl/documenten/handreiking-ontsluiting-patientgegevens-voor-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek .
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.
Versteijne E, Suker M, Groothuis K, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: results of the Dutch Randomized Phase III PREOPANC Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1763–1773.
Janssen QP, van Dam JL, Bonsing BA, et al. Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-2 trial): study protocol for a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:300.
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992;111:518–526.
van Roessel S, Mackay TM, van Dieren S, et al. Textbook outcome: nationwide analysis of a novel quality measure in pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg. 2020;271:155–162.
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.
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.
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.
Lequeu JB, Cottenet J, Facy O, et al. Failure to rescue in patients with distal pancreatectomy: a nationwide analysis of 10,632 patients. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23:1410–1417.
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. 2021;169:396–402.
Smits FJ, Henry AC, Besselink MG, et al. Algorithm-based care versus usual care for the early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands: an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2022;399:1867–1875.
Nota CL, Zwart MJ, Fong Y, et al. Developing a robotic pancreas program: the Dutch experience. J Vis Surg. 2017;3:106.
Zwart MJW, Nota CLM, de Rooij T, et al. Outcomes of a multicenter training program in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3). Ann Surg. 2022;276:e886–e895.
van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:199–207.
Palanivelu C, Senthilnathan P, Sabnis SC, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. Br J Surg. 2017;104:1443–1450.
Poves I, Burdío F, Morató O, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018;268:731–739.
Wang M, Li D, Chen R, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6:438–447.
Beck N, van Bommel AC, Eddes EH, et al. The Dutch Institute for clinical auditing: achieving Codman's Dream on a nationwide basis. Ann Surg. 2020;271:627–631.
Augustin T, Burstein MD, Schneider EB, et al. Frailty predicts risk of life-threatening complications and mortality after pancreatic resections. Surgery. 2016;160:987–996.