BACKGROUND: A recent randomized trial used the Fistula Risk Score (FRS) to develop guidelines for selective drainage based on clinically relevant fistula (CR-POPF) risk. Additionally, postoperative day (POD) 1 drain and serum amylase have been identified as accurate postoperative predictors of CR-POPF. This study sought to identify patients who may benefit from selective drainage, as well as the optimal timing for drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred six pancreatoduodenectomies from a previously reported RCT were assessed using risk-adjustment. The incidence of CR-POPF was compared between FRS risk cohorts. Drain and serum amylase values from POD 1 were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to establish cut-offs predictive of CR-POPF occurrence. A regression analysis compared drain removal randomizations (POD 3 vs POD 5). RESULTS: Three-quarters of patients had moderate/high CR-POPF risk. This group had a CR-POPF rate of 36.3% vs 7.7% among negligible/low risk patients (p = 0.005). The areas under the ROC curve for CR-POPF prediction using POD 1 drain and serum amylase values were 0.800 (p = 0.000001; 95% CI 0.70-0.90) and 0.655 (p = 0.012; 95% CI 0.55-0.77), respectively. No significant serum amylase cut-offs were identified. Moderate/high risk patients with POD 1 drain amylase ≤ 5,000 U/L had significantly lower rates of CR-POPF when randomized to POD 3 drain removal (4.2% vs 38.5%; p = 0.003); moreover, these patients experienced fewer complications and shorter hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical care protocol is proposed whereby drains are recommended for moderate/high FRS risk patients, but may be omitted in patients with negligible/low risk. Drain amylase values in moderate/high risk patients should then be evaluated on POD 1 to determine the optimal timing for drain removal. Moderate/high risk patients with POD 1 drain amylase ≤ 5,000 U/L have lower rates of CR-POPF with POD 3 (vs POD ≥ 5) drain removal; early drain removal is recommended for these patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A recent randomized trial used the Fistula Risk Score (FRS) to develop guidelines for selective drainage based on clinically relevant fistula (CR-POPF) risk. Additionally, postoperative day (POD) 1 drain and serum amylase have been identified as accurate postoperative predictors of CR-POPF. This study sought to identify patients who may benefit from selective drainage, as well as the optimal timing for drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred six pancreatoduodenectomies from a previously reported RCT were assessed using risk-adjustment. The incidence of CR-POPF was compared between FRS risk cohorts. Drain and serum amylase values from POD 1 were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to establish cut-offs predictive of CR-POPF occurrence. A regression analysis compared drain removal randomizations (POD 3 vs POD 5). RESULTS: Three-quarters of patients had moderate/high CR-POPF risk. This group had a CR-POPF rate of 36.3% vs 7.7% among negligible/low risk patients (p = 0.005). The areas under the ROC curve for CR-POPF prediction using POD 1 drain and serum amylase values were 0.800 (p = 0.000001; 95% CI 0.70-0.90) and 0.655 (p = 0.012; 95% CI 0.55-0.77), respectively. No significant serum amylase cut-offs were identified. Moderate/high risk patients with POD 1 drain amylase ≤ 5,000 U/L had significantly lower rates of CR-POPF when randomized to POD 3 drain removal (4.2% vs 38.5%; p = 0.003); moreover, these patients experienced fewer complications and shorter hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical care protocol is proposed whereby drains are recommended for moderate/high FRS risk patients, but may be omitted in patients with negligible/low risk. Drain amylase values in moderate/high risk patients should then be evaluated on POD 1 to determine the optimal timing for drain removal. Moderate/high risk patients with POD 1 drain amylase ≤ 5,000 U/L have lower rates of CR-POPF with POD 3 (vs POD ≥ 5) drain removal; early drain removal is recommended for these patients.
Authors: Gregory T Kennedy; Matthew T McMillan; Michael H Sprys; Claudio Bassi; Paul D Greig; Paul D Hansen; Dhiresh R Jeyarajah; Tara S Kent; Giuseppe Malleo; Giovanni Marchegiani; Rebecca M Minter; Charles M Vollmer Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Matthew T McMillan; Brett L Ecker; Stephen W Behrman; Mark P Callery; John D Christein; Jeffrey A Drebin; Douglas L Fraker; Tara S Kent; Major K Lee; Robert E Roses; Michael H Sprys; Charles M Vollmer Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Nicole Villafane-Ferriol; George Van Buren; Jose E Mendez-Reyes; Amy L McElhany; Nader N Massarweh; Eric J Silberfein; Cary Hsu; Hop S Tran Cao; Carl Schmidt; Nicholas J Zyromski; Mary E Dillhoff; Alexandra Roch; Evelyn Oliva; Alexander C Smith; Qianzi Zhang; William E Fisher Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Joshua T Cohen; Kevin P Charpentier; Thomas J Miner; William G Cioffi; Rachel E Beard Journal: Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Date: 2021-05-31