B Darnis1, R Lebeau, X Chopin-Laly, M Adham. 1. Department of HBP Surgery, Edouard Herriot hospital, HCL, Lyon Faculty of Medicine, UCBL1, 5 Place d'Arsonval, 69437 Lyon, Cedex 03, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) is a dreaded complication in pancreatic surgery. Today, there is a definition and grading of PPH without therapeutic consensus. We reviewed our prospective database to identify predictors and assess therapeutic strategy. METHOD: We included all patients who underwent pancreatectomy between 2005 and 2010. Data were collected prospectively. We used the International Study Group Of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition for PPH to include patients in the PPH group. RESULTS: Forty-six of 285 patients showed a PPH (16.1 %). The ISGPS classification was graded A = 3, B = 26, and C = 17. The average time to the onset of PPH was 7 days. CT-scan identified the origin of PPH in 43.5 % of the cases. PPH was responsible for a longer duration of hospital stay (p = 0.004), a higher hospital mortality (21.7 vs 2.5 %, p < 0.0001) and a lower survival (40 vs 70 % (p = 0.05) at 36 months). The first-intention treatment of PPH was conservative in 32 % and interventional in 68 %: endoscopy (6.4 %), transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE, 30.4 %), and surgical (30.4 %). In multivariate analysis, predictors of PPH were: pancreatic fistula (24 vs 8 % p = 0.028), pancreatoduodenectomy (70 vs 43 % p = 0.029), age (61.6 vs 58.8 %, p = 0.03), and nutritional risk index (NRI) (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: In our series, risk factors for PPH were age, pancreatic fistula, pancreatoduodenectomy, and NRI. Its occurrence is associated with significantly higher hospital mortality and a lower survival rate. Our first-line treatment was radiological TAE. Surgical treatment is offered in case of failure of interventional radiology or in case of uncontrolled hemodynamic.
BACKGROUND: Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) is a dreaded complication in pancreatic surgery. Today, there is a definition and grading of PPH without therapeutic consensus. We reviewed our prospective database to identify predictors and assess therapeutic strategy. METHOD: We included all patients who underwent pancreatectomy between 2005 and 2010. Data were collected prospectively. We used the International Study Group Of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition for PPH to include patients in the PPH group. RESULTS: Forty-six of 285 patients showed a PPH (16.1 %). The ISGPS classification was graded A = 3, B = 26, and C = 17. The average time to the onset of PPH was 7 days. CT-scan identified the origin of PPH in 43.5 % of the cases. PPH was responsible for a longer duration of hospital stay (p = 0.004), a higher hospital mortality (21.7 vs 2.5 %, p < 0.0001) and a lower survival (40 vs 70 % (p = 0.05) at 36 months). The first-intention treatment of PPH was conservative in 32 % and interventional in 68 %: endoscopy (6.4 %), transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE, 30.4 %), and surgical (30.4 %). In multivariate analysis, predictors of PPH were: pancreatic fistula (24 vs 8 % p = 0.028), pancreatoduodenectomy (70 vs 43 % p = 0.029), age (61.6 vs 58.8 %, p = 0.03), and nutritional risk index (NRI) (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: In our series, risk factors for PPH were age, pancreatic fistula, pancreatoduodenectomy, and NRI. Its occurrence is associated with significantly higher hospital mortality and a lower survival rate. Our first-line treatment was radiological TAE. Surgical treatment is offered in case of failure of interventional radiology or in case of uncontrolled hemodynamic.
Authors: Thomas J Howard; Joseph E Krug; Jian Yu; Nick J Zyromski; C Max Schmidt; Lewis E Jacobson; James A Madura; Eric A Wiebke; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Pandanaboyana Sanjay; Ali Fawzi; Jennifer L Fulke; Christoph Kulli; Iain S Tait; Iain A Zealley; Francesco M Polignano Journal: JOP Date: 2010-05-05
Authors: Emre F Yekebas; Lars Wolfram; Guellue Cataldegirmen; Christian R Habermann; Dean Bogoevski; Alexandra M Koenig; Jussuf Kaifi; Paulus G Schurr; Michael Bubenheim; Claus Nolte-Ernsting; Gerhard Adam; Jakob R Izbicki Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: U F Wellner; B Kulemann; H Lapshyn; J Hoeppner; O Sick; F Makowiec; D Bausch; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; T Keck Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Leandro Cardoso Barchi; Amir Zeide Charruf; Rodrigo José de Oliveira; Carlos Eduardo Jacob; Ivan Cecconello; Bruno Zilberstein Journal: Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-12-27
Authors: Sebastian Hempel; Steffen Wolk; Christoph Kahlert; Stephan Kersting; Jürgen Weitz; Thilo Welsch; Marius Distler Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Gyulnara G Kasumova; Mariam F Eskander; Tara S Kent; Sing Chau Ng; A James Moser; Muneeb Ahmed; Douglas K Pleskow; Mark P Callery; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Keith J Roberts; Georgina Blanco; Jonathan Webber; Ravi Marudanayagam; Robert P Sutcliffe; Paolo Muiesan; Simon R Bramhall; John Isaac; Darius F Mirza Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 3.647