INTRODUCTION: The safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) after pancreatic surgery is largely unknown. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate a targeted ERP after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), using first postoperative day (POD) drain fluid amylase (DFA1) values to identify patients at low risk of pancreatic fistula (PF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Non-randomized cohort study of 130 consecutive patients. Perioperative outcomes were compared before (pre-ERP; N=65) and after (post-ERP; N=65) implementation of an ERP. Patients in each group were stratified according to the risk of PF using DFA1<350 IU/l. Low-risk patients in the post-ERP group were selected for early oral intake and early drain removal. RESULTS: 81/130 patients had a DFA1<350. Incidence of PF was significantly lower in low-risk patients (9 vs. 45%, P=0.0001). In low-risk patients, morbidity (43 vs. 36%) and mortality (2.7 vs. 4.5%) were similar for both pre- and post-ERP patients. Hospital stay (median 9 vs. 7 days, P=0.03) and 30-day readmissions (17 vs. 2%, P=0.04) were lower in low-risk patients in the post-ERP group. In high-risk patients, there was no difference in outcomes between pre- and post-ERP. CONCLUSION: Patients at low risk of PF after PD can be identified by first POD DFA1. Enhanced recovery after PD is safe and leads to improved short-term outcomes in low-risk patients.
INTRODUCTION: The safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) after pancreatic surgery is largely unknown. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate a targeted ERP after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), using first postoperative day (POD) drain fluid amylase (DFA1) values to identify patients at low risk of pancreatic fistula (PF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Non-randomized cohort study of 130 consecutive patients. Perioperative outcomes were compared before (pre-ERP; N=65) and after (post-ERP; N=65) implementation of an ERP. Patients in each group were stratified according to the risk of PF using DFA1<350 IU/l. Low-risk patients in the post-ERP group were selected for early oral intake and early drain removal. RESULTS: 81/130 patients had a DFA1<350. Incidence of PF was significantly lower in low-risk patients (9 vs. 45%, P=0.0001). In low-risk patients, morbidity (43 vs. 36%) and mortality (2.7 vs. 4.5%) were similar for both pre- and post-ERP patients. Hospital stay (median 9 vs. 7 days, P=0.03) and 30-day readmissions (17 vs. 2%, P=0.04) were lower in low-risk patients in the post-ERP group. In high-risk patients, there was no difference in outcomes between pre- and post-ERP. CONCLUSION:Patients at low risk of PF after PD can be identified by first POD DFA1. Enhanced recovery after PD is safe and leads to improved short-term outcomes in low-risk patients.
Authors: Jacqueline S Israel; Robert J Rettammel; Glen E Leverson; Laura R Hanks; Clifford S Cho; Emily R Winslow; Sharon M Weber Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kristoffer Lassen; Marielle M E Coolsen; Karem Slim; Francesco Carli; José E de Aguilar-Nascimento; Markus Schäfer; Rowan W Parks; Kenneth C H Fearon; Dileep N Lobo; Nicolas Demartines; Marco Braga; Olle Ljungqvist; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: M Mura Assifi; John Lindenmeyer; Benjamin E Leiby; Zvi Grunwald; Ernest L Rosato; Eugene P Kennedy; Charles J Yeo; Adam C Berger Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Mohammed Abu Hilal; Francesco Di Fabio; Abdallah Badran; Hani Alsaati; Hannah Clarke; Imogen Fecher; Thomas H Armstrong; Colin D Johnson; Neil W Pearce Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2012-12-02 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: George Van Buren; Mark Bloomston; Steven J Hughes; Jordan Winter; Stephen W Behrman; Nicholas J Zyromski; Charles Vollmer; Vic Velanovich; Taylor Riall; Peter Muscarella; Jose Trevino; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Kevin Behrns; E Christopher Ellison; Omar Barakat; Kyle A Perry; Jeffrey Drebin; Michael House; Sherif Abdel-Misih; Eric J Silberfein; Steven Goldin; Kimberly Brown; Somala Mohammed; Sally E Hodges; Amy McElhany; Mehdi Issazadeh; Eunji Jo; Qianxing Mo; William E Fisher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Keith J Roberts; James Hodson; Homoyoon Mehrzad; Ravi Marudanayagam; Robert P Sutcliffe; Paolo Muiesan; John Isaac; Simon R Bramhall; Darius F Mirza Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Robert P Sutcliffe; Narendra Battula; Ali Haque; Amir Ali; Parthi Srinivasan; Simon W Atkinson; Mohamed Rela; Nigel D Heaton; Andreas A Prachalias Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Marion van der Kolk; Mark van den Boogaard; Femke Becking-Verhaar; Hettie Custers; Hans van der Hoeven; Peter Pickkers; Kees van Laarhoven Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: E Martin-Perez; J E Domínguez-Muñoz; F Botella-Romero; L Cerezo; F Matute Teresa; T Serrano; R Vera Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Junjie Xiong; Peter Szatmary; Wei Huang; Daniel de la Iglesia-Garcia; Quentin M Nunes; Qing Xia; Weiming Hu; Robert Sutton; Xubao Liu; Michael G Raraty Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.889