Literature DB >> 29571615

Variation in hospital mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy is related to failure to rescue rather than major complications: a nationwide audit.

Lennart B van Rijssen1, Maurice J Zwart1, Susan van Dieren2, Thijs de Rooij1, Bert A Bonsing3, Koop Bosscha4, Ronald M van Dam5, Casper H van Eijck6, Michael F Gerhards7, Josephus J Gerritsen8, Erwin van der Harst9, Ignace H de Hingh10, Koert P de Jong11, Geert Kazemier12, Joost Klaase8, Berendina M van der Kolk13, Cornelis J van Laarhoven13, Misha D Luyer10, Isaac Q Molenaar14, Gijs A Patijn15, Coen G Rupert16, Joris J Scheepers17, George P van der Schelling18, Alexander L Vahrmeijer3, Olivier R C Busch1, Hjalmar C van Santvoort19, Bas Groot Koerkamp6, Marc G Besselink20.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, rates of major complications and Failure to Rescue (FTR) after pancreatoduodenectomy between low- and high-mortality hospitals are compared, and independent predictors for FTR investigated.
METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in 2014 and 2015 in The Netherlands were included. Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on mortality rates. The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) and death after a major complication (FTR) were compared between these quartiles. Independent predictors for FTR were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Out of 1.342 patients, 391 (29%) developed a major complication and in-hospital mortality was 4.2%. FTR occurred in 56 (14.3%) patients. Mortality was 0.9% in the first hospital quartile (4 hospitals, 327 patients) and 8.1% in the fourth quartile (5 hospitals, 310 patients). The rate of major complications increased by 40% (25.7% vs 35.2%) between the first and fourth hospital quartile, whereas the FTR rate increased by 560% (3.6% vs 22.9%). Independent predictors of FTR were male sex (OR = 2.1, 95%CI 1.2-3.9), age >75 years (OR = 4.3, 1.8-10.2), BMI ≥30 (OR = 2.9, 1.3-6.6), histopathological diagnosis of periampullary cancer (OR = 2.0, 1.1-3.7), and hospital volume <30 (OR = 3.9, 1.6-9.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Variations in mortality between hospitals after pancreatoduodenectomy were explained mainly by differences in FTR, rather than the incidence of major complications.
Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29571615     DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.02.640

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HPB (Oxford)        ISSN: 1365-182X            Impact factor:   3.647


  12 in total

1.  Global Survey on Pancreatic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Atsushi Oba; Thomas F Stoop; Matthias Löhr; Thilo Hackert; Nicholas Zyromski; William H Nealon; Michiaki Unno; Richard D Schulick; Mohammed H Al-Musawi; Wenming Wu; Yupei Zhao; Sohei Satoi; Christopher L Wolfgang; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink; Marco Del Chiaro
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery in Europe: an Update.

Authors:  Kjetil Søreide; Linn S Nymo; Kristoffer Lassen
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Letter to Editor Reply to: "Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery in Europe: an Update".

Authors:  Faik G Uzunoglu; Asmus Heumann; Adam Polonski; Jakob R Izbicki
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Algorithm-based care for early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection: toward standardization of postoperative care.

Authors:  Charles de Ponthaud; Sébastien Gaujoux
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2022-10       Impact factor: 8.265

Review 5.  Mortality factors in pancreatic surgery: A systematic review. How important is the hospital volume?

Authors:  Richard Hunger; Barbara Seliger; Shuji Ogino; Rene Mantke
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 13.400

6.  Surgical management of biliary malignancy.

Authors:  T Peter Kingham; Victoria G Aveson; Alice C Wei; Jason A Castellanos; Peter J Allen; Daniel P Nussbaum; Yinin Hu; Michael I D'Angelica
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 1.909

7.  Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: does it reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula in comparison to other pancreatic anastomoses?

Authors:  Marcello Di Martino; Ángela de la Hoz Rodríguez; Elena Martín-Pérez
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-06

8.  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.

Authors:  F Jasmijn Smits; Anne Claire Henry; Casper H van Eijck; Marc G Besselink; Olivier R Busch; Mark Arntz; Thomas L Bollen; Otto M van Delden; Daniel van den Heuvel; Christiaan van der Leij; Krijn P van Lienden; Adriaan Moelker; Bert A Bonsing; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Koop Bosscha; R M van Dam; Sebastiaan Festen; B Groot Koerkamp; Erwin van der Harst; Ignace H de Hingh; Geert Kazemier; Mike Liem; B Marion van der Kolk; Vincent E de Meijer; Gijs A Patijn; Daphne Roos; Jennifer M Schreinemakers; Fennie Wit; C Henri van Werkhoven; I Quintus Molenaar; Hjalmar C van Santvoort
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Pancreatic Cancer Surgery Following Emergency Department Admission: Understanding Poor Outcomes and Disparities in Care.

Authors:  Vishes V Mehta; Patricia Friedmann; John C McAuliffe; Peter Muscarella; Haejin In
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Centralizing a national pancreatoduodenectomy service: striking the right balance.

Authors:  L S Nymo; D Kleive; K Waardal; E A Bringeland; J A Søreide; K J Labori; K E Mortensen; K Søreide; K Lassen
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-09-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.