A Adiamah1, Z Arif1, F Berti1, S Singh1, N Laskar1, D Gomez2. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, E Floor, West Block, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. 2. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, E Floor, West Block, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. dhanny.gomez@nuh.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic administration of somatostatin analogues (SA) to reduce the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains contentious. This meta-analysis evaluated its impact on outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating prophylactic SA following PD. Comparative effects were summarised as odds ratio and weighted mean difference based on an intention to treat. Quantitative pooling of the effect sizes was derived using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included involving 1615 patients [SA-treated group (n = 820) and control group (n = 795)]. The SA used included somatostatin-14, pasireotide, vapreotide and octreotide. Pooling of the data showed no significant benefit of its use for the primary outcome measure of all grades of POPF, odds ratio (OR) 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-1.05, p = 0.09] and clinically relevant POPF, OR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.06, p = 0.07]. There were no benefits in the secondary outcome measures of delayed gastric emptying, OR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.57-1.69, p = 0.94]; infected abdominal collections, OR 0.80 [95% CI, 0.44-1.43, p = 0.80]; reoperation rates, OR 1.24 [95% CI, 0.73-2.13, p = 0.42]; duration of hospital stay, - 0.23 [95% CI - .59 to 1.13, p = 0.74]; and mortality, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.94-3.39, p = 0.08]. CONCLUSION: SA did not improve the post-operative outcomes following PD, including reducing the incidence of POPF. The routine administration of SA cannot be recommended following PD.
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic administration of somatostatin analogues (SA) to reduce the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains contentious. This meta-analysis evaluated its impact on outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating prophylactic SA following PD. Comparative effects were summarised as odds ratio and weighted mean difference based on an intention to treat. Quantitative pooling of the effect sizes was derived using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included involving 1615 patients [SA-treated group (n = 820) and control group (n = 795)]. The SA used included somatostatin-14, pasireotide, vapreotide and octreotide. Pooling of the data showed no significant benefit of its use for the primary outcome measure of all grades of POPF, odds ratio (OR) 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-1.05, p = 0.09] and clinically relevant POPF, OR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.06, p = 0.07]. There were no benefits in the secondary outcome measures of delayed gastric emptying, OR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.57-1.69, p = 0.94]; infected abdominal collections, OR 0.80 [95% CI, 0.44-1.43, p = 0.80]; reoperation rates, OR 1.24 [95% CI, 0.73-2.13, p = 0.42]; duration of hospital stay, - 0.23 [95% CI - .59 to 1.13, p = 0.74]; and mortality, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.94-3.39, p = 0.08]. CONCLUSION:SA did not improve the post-operative outcomes following PD, including reducing the incidence of POPF. The routine administration of SA cannot be recommended following PD.
Authors: Matthew T McMillan; John D Christein; Mark P Callery; Stephen W Behrman; Jeffrey A Drebin; Tara S Kent; Benjamin C Miller; Russell S Lewis; Charles M Vollmer Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: C J Yeo; J L Cameron; K D Lillemoe; P K Sauter; J Coleman; T A Sohn; K A Campbell; M A Choti Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: June S Peng; Daniel Joyce; Maureen Brady; Adrienne Groman; Kristopher Attwood; Boris Kuvshinoff; Steven N Hochwald; Moshim Kukar Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: So Jeong Yoon; Okjoo Lee; Ji Hye Jung; Sang Hyun Shin; Jin Seok Heo; In Woong Han Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 1.817