Literature DB >> 32667635

Nasogastric Decompression vs No Decompression After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Randomized Clinical IPOD Trial.

Damien Bergeat1,2,3, Aude Merdrignac1,3, Fabien Robin1,3, Elodie Gaignard1,3, Michel Rayar1,3,4, Bernard Meunier1,3, Hélène Beloeil3,4,5,6, Karim Boudjema1,3,4, Bruno Laviolle3,4,5,7, Laurent Sulpice1,3,4,5.   

Abstract

Importance: Although standardization of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has improved postoperative outcomes, morbidity remains high. Fast-track surgery programs appear to improve morbidity, and avoiding nasogastric tube decompression (NGTD), already outdated in most major abdominal surgery, is strongly suggested after PD by fast-track surgery programs but lacks high-level evidence, especially regarding safety. Objective: To assess in a randomized clinical trial whether the absence of systematic NGTD after PD reduces postoperative complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: The IPOD study (Impact of the Absence of Nasogastric Decompression After Pancreaticoduodenectomy) was an open-label, prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial conducted at a high-volume pancreatic surgery university hospital in France. In total, 155 patients who were 18 to 75 years of age and required PD for benign or malignant disease were screened for study eligibility. Key exclusion criteria were previous gastric or esophageal surgery and severe comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to systematic NGTD or to no nasogastric decompression and were followed up until 90 days after surgery. Interventions: For patients without NGTD, the NGT was removed immediately after surgery, whereas for patients with NGTD, the NGT was removed 3 to 5 days after surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of postoperative complications grade II or higher using the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary end point and safety were evaluated in the intent-to-treat population.
Results: From January 2016 to August 2018, 125 screened patients were considered eligible for the study, and 111 were randomized to no NGTD (n = 52) or to NGTD (n = 59). No patient was lost to follow-up. The 2 groups had similar patient demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline. The median (interquartile range) age was 63.0 (57.0-66.5) years in the group with NGTD (38 [64.4%] were males) and 64.0 (58.0-68.0) years in the group without NGTD (31 [59.6%] were males). The postoperative complication rates grade II or higher were similar between the 2 groups (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.47; P > .99). Pulmonary complication rates (risk ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.18-1.95; P = .44) and delayed gastric emptying rates (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.52-2.21; P > .99) were not significantly different between the groups. Median (interquartile) length of hospital stay for patients without NGTD was not significantly different compared with those with NGTD (10.0 [9.0-16.3] vs 12.0 [10.0-16.0] days; P = .14). Conclusions and Relevance: The present study found no significant difference in postoperative complication occurrence of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher between systematic NGTD and no NGTD after PD, suggesting that avoiding systematic nasogastric decompression is safe for this indication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02594956.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32667635      PMCID: PMC7364368          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.2291

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  34 in total

1.  A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers.

Authors:  C C Apfel; E Läärä; M Koivuranta; C A Greim; N Roewer
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  Evaluation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition of delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy in a high-volume centre.

Authors:  T Welsch; M Borm; L Degrate; U Hinz; M W Büchler; M N Wente
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  The First Decade of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: Costs and Outcomes Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Thuy B Tran; Monica M Dua; David J Worhunsky; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton; Brendan C Visser
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Authors:  Moritz N Wente; Claudio Bassi; Christos Dervenis; Abe Fingerhut; Dirk J Gouma; Jakob R Izbicki; John P Neoptolemos; Robert T Padbury; Michael G Sarr; L William Traverso; Charles J Yeo; Markus W Büchler
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 5.  The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After.

Authors:  Claudio Bassi; Giovanni Marchegiani; Christos Dervenis; Micheal Sarr; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Mustapha Adham; Peter Allen; Roland Andersson; Horacio J Asbun; Marc G Besselink; Kevin Conlon; Marco Del Chiaro; Massimo Falconi; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Abe Fingerhut; Helmut Friess; Dirk J Gouma; Thilo Hackert; Jakob Izbicki; Keith D Lillemoe; John P Neoptolemos; Attila Olah; Richard Schulick; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Tadahiro Takada; Kyoichi Takaori; William Traverso; Charles R Vollmer; Christopher L Wolfgang; Charles J Yeo; Roberto Salvia; Marcus Buchler
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Is systematic nasogastric decompression after pancreaticoduodenectomy really necessary?

Authors:  Elodie Gaignard; Damien Bergeat; Laetitia Courtin-Tanguy; Michel Rayar; Aude Merdrignac; Fabien Robin; Karim Boudjema; Helene Beloeil; Bernard Meunier; Laurent Sulpice
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.445

7.  Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations.

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

8.  Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Felix Nickel; Caelán Max Haney; Karl Friedrich Kowalewski; Pascal Probst; Eldridge Frederick Limen; Eva Kalkum; Marcus K Diener; Oliver Strobel; Beat Peter Müller-Stich; Thilo Hackert
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Provider versus patient factors impacting hospital length of stay after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Eric B Schneider; Omar Hyder; Christopher L Wolfgang; Rebecca M Dodson; Adil H Haider; Joseph M Herman; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Recurrence pattern and prognosis of pancreatic cancer after pancreatic fistula.

Authors:  Shunji Nagai; Tsutomu Fujii; Yasuhiro Kodera; Mitsuro Kanda; Tevfik T Sahin; Akiyuki Kanzaki; Masamichi Hayashi; Hiroyuki Sugimoto; Shuji Nomoto; Shin Takeda; Satoshi Morita; Akimasa Nakao
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  2 in total

1.  The CONSORT Framework.

Authors:  Ryan P Merkow; Amy H Kaji; Kamal M F Itani
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 16.681

2.  Impact of routine nasogastric decompression versus no nasogastric decompression after pancreaticoduodenectomy on perioperative outcomes: meta-analysis.

Authors:  Khaled Ammar; Chris Varghese; Thejasvin K; Viswakumar Prabakaran; Stuart Robinson; Samir Pathak; Bobby V M Dasari; Sanjay Pandanaboyana
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-11-09
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.