| Literature DB >> 28749112 |
Firdaus Hayati1, Zairul Azwan Mohd Azman, Dian Nasriana Nasuruddin, Luqman Mazlan, Andee Dzulkarnaen Zakaria, Ismail Sagap.
Abstract
Background: Anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery results in a high morbidity and mortality rate. Serum procalcitonin levels is known as a sensitive and specific marker of sepsis and could be use as a marker for early detection of a leak allowing early intervention. It may help a clinician decide to perform a CT scan even earlier especially when the diagnosis of a leak is uncertain. The aim of this study is to determine whether serum procalcitonin is a good predictor of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery. Methodology: Between July 2014 until October 2015, 70 patients undergoing colorectal surgery were prospectively analyzed in a single-center tertiary teaching hospital. Demographic and surgical data were obtained. Serum procalcitonin was taken before surgery and at day 3 (72 hours) postoperatively. During the postoperative period, the patients were observed in the ward for features of anastomotic leak and if present, it was managed accordingly. The primary outcome was to prospectively determine an association between serum procalcitonin levels and an anastomotic leak in patients who underwent colorectal surgery with a primary anastomosis. Result: The rate of anastomotic leak was 4.5% (3 patients) with a mortality rate of 4.3% (3 patients). A rise in serum procalcitonin was statistically significant among patients with anastomotic leak. The optimal procalcitonin cut-off level at postoperative day 3 was 5.27 ng/mL, resulting in 100% sensitivity, 85% specificity, 23% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. Nevertheless, none of the variables showed statistical significance with an anastomotic leak.Entities:
Keywords: Colon; leak; procalcitonin; rectum; surgery
Year: 2017 PMID: 28749112 PMCID: PMC5648385 DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.7.1821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Details of Surgery
| Number of patients, n | Percentage, % | |
|---|---|---|
| Type of surgery | ||
| Right hemicolectomy | 10 | 14.3 |
| Left hemicolectomy | 4 | 5.7 |
| Sigmoid colectomy | 6 | 8.6 |
| Anterior resection | 22 | 31.4 |
| Hartman reversal | 8 | 11.4 |
| Stoma closure | 11 | 15.7 |
| Others | 9 | 12.9 |
| Type of anastomosis | ||
| Stapler | 64 | 91.4 |
| Hand-sewn | 6 | 8.6 |
| Anastomotic leak | ||
| Anastomotic leak | 3 | 4.3 |
| No leak | 67 | 95.7 |
| Mortality | ||
| Mortality | 3 | 4.3 |
| Alive | 67 | 95.7 |
Anastomotic Leak after Surgery – Univariate Analysis
| Categorical data | Overall population (n = 70) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AL, n (%) | No AL, n (%) | P-value | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 2 (2.9) | 48 (68.6) | 1 |
| Female | 1 (1.4) | 19 (27.1) | |
| Ethnic group | |||
| Chinese | 3 (4.3) | 35 (50) | 0.451 |
| Malay | 0 (0) | 30 (42.9) | |
| Indian | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | |
| Others | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | |
| Diagnosis | |||
| Cancer | 3 (4.3) | 59 (84.3) | 1 |
| No cancer | 0 (0) | 8 (11.4) | |
| Type of surgery | |||
| Right hemicolectomy | 2 (2.9) | 8 (11.4) | Invalid |
| Left hemicolectomy | 0 (0) | 4 (57.1) | |
| Sigmoid colectomy | 0 (0) | 6 (8.6) | |
| Anterior resection | 1 (1.4) | 21 (30) | |
| Hartman reversal | 0 (0) | 8 (11.4) | |
| Stoma closure | 0/(0) | 11 (15.7) | |
| Others | 0 (0) | 9 (12.9) | |
| Surgical approach | |||
| Open | 3 (4.3) | 47 (67.1) | 0.552 |
| Laparoscopy | 0 (0) | 20 (28.6) | |
| Type of anastomosis | |||
| Stapler | 3 (4.3) | 61 (87.1) | 1 |
| Hand-sewn | 0 (0) | 6 (8.6) | |
| Anastomotic technique | |||
| End-to-end | 1 (1.4) | 42 (60) | 0.555 |
| Side-to-side | 2 (2.9) | 25 (35.7) | |
| Covering ileostomy | |||
| Yes | 1 (1.4) | 18 (25.7) | 1 |
| No | 2 (2.9) | 49 (70) | |
| Age, years old | P-value | ||
| Mean (SD) | 68.67 (9) | 61.27 (12.8) | 0.327 |
| Duration of surgery, minutes | |||
| Mean (SD) | 176.7 (49.3) | 206.1 (91.11) | 0.582 |
using Fischer exact test;
using independent t-test
PCT and TWC Mean Values between No Complication and Complication Group
| POD | No Complication Group (n = 53) | Complication Group (n = 17) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT, ng/mL | 0 | 2.56 (5.32) | 5.47 (6.85) | 0.072 |
| 3 | 4.63 (15.61) | 8.6 (14.12) | 0.354 | |
| TWC, x103/µL | 0 | 10.21 (4.21) | 9.9 (4.79) | 0.802 |
| 3 | 10.2 (3.55) | 11.5 (4.7) | 0.231 |
using independent t test. Data are expressed as mean (SD); PCT, procalcitonin; TWC, total white cell
PCT and TWC Mean Values Between No Infection and Infection Group
| POD | No Infection Group (n = 61) | Infection Group (n = 9) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT, ng/mL | 0 | 2.86 (5.52) | 6.05 (7.26) | 0.125 |
| 3 | 4.63 (14.62) | 12.18 (18.63) | 0.167 | |
| TWC, x103/µL | 0 | 10.07 (4.26) | 10.58 (5.0) | 0.746 |
| 3 | 10.2 (3.57) | 12.6 (5.31) | 0.089 | |
| PCT, ng/mL | 0 | 3.27 (5.92) | 3.123 (2.75) | 0.965 |
| 3 | 4.71 (14.05) | 25.48 (29.9) | 0.02 | |
| TWC, x103/µL | 0 | 10.13 (4.27) | 10.23 (6.65) | 0.969 |
| 3 | 10.26 (3.47) | 16.17(8.27) | 0.009 | |
using independent t test; Data are expressed as mean (SD); PCT, procalcitonin; TWC, total white cell; Al, anastomotic leak
Figure 1ROC Curve for PCT at Day 3
Figure 2ROC Curve for TWC at Day 3
Participants with Anastomotic Leak of PCT and TWC on Postoperative Day 0 and 3
| POD | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | pAUC | AUC | Cut-off | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT, ng/mL | 0 | 67 | 72 | 0.07 | 0.716 | 1.83 |
| 3 | 100 | 85 | 0.014 | 0.92 | 5.27 | |
| TWC, x103/µL | 0 | 67 | 73 | 0.862 | 0.53 | 12.6 |
| 3 | 100 | 37 | 0.143 | 0.751 | 8.55 |
PCT, procalcitonin; TWC, total white cell; AUC, area under the curve; p, p-value
Cross-Tabulation between New PCT and Gold Standard
| Gold Standard | Total | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | No AL | |||
| PCT > 5.27 | 3 | 10 | 13 | 0.005 |
| PCT < 5.26 | 0 | 57 | 57 | |
| Total | 3 | 67 | 70 | |
, using Fisher’s exact test; PCT in ng/mL