Outcome of Pancreatic Surgery During the First 6 Years of a Mandatory Audit Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group

Objective: To describe outcome after pancreatic surgery in the first 6 years of a mandatory nationwide audit. Background: Within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, efforts have been made to improve outcome after pancreatic surgery. These include collaborative projects, clinical auditing, and implementation of an algorithm for early recognition and management of postoperative complications. However, nationwide changes in outcome over time have not yet been described. Methods: This nationwide cohort study included consecutive patients after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy from the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (January 2014–December 2019). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between 3 time periods (2014–2015, 2016–2017, and 2018–2019). Short-term surgical outcome was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Primary endpoints were failure to rescue (FTR) and in-hospital mortality. Results: Overall, 5345 patients were included, of whom 4227 after PD and 1118 after distal pancreatectomy. After PD, FTR improved from 13% to 7.4% [odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50–0.80, P<0.001] and in-hospital mortality decreased from 4.1% to 2.4% (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.86, P=0.001), despite operating on more patients with age >75 years (18%–22%, P=0.006), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3 (19%–31%, P<0.001) and Charlson comorbidity score ≥2 (24%–34%, P<0.001). The rates of textbook outcome (57%–55%, P=0.283) and major complications remained stable (31%–33%, P=0.207), whereas complication-related intensive care admission decreased (13%–9%, P=0.002). After distal pancreatectomy, improvements in FTR from 8.8% to 5.9% (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.30–1.37, P=0.253) and in-hospital mortality from 1.6% to 1.3% (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45–1.72, P=0.711) were not statistically significant. Conclusions: During the first 6 years of a nationwide audit, in-hospital mortality and FTR after PD improved despite operating on more high-risk patients. Several collaborative efforts may have contributed to these improvements.

[1]  R. J. Haas,et al.  Algorithm-based care versus usual care for the early recognition and management of complications after pancreatic resection in the Netherlands: an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial , 2022, The Lancet.

[2]  G. Tienhoven,et al.  Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-2 trial): study protocol for a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial , 2021, BMC Cancer.

[3]  A. Bernard,et al.  Failure to rescue in patients with distal pancreatectomy: a nationwide analysis of 10,632 patients. , 2021, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[4]  F. Daams,et al.  Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-3) , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[5]  U. Boggi,et al.  Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey. , 2020, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[6]  H. Pitt,et al.  Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden: Comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes. , 2020, Surgery.

[7]  A. Zwinderman,et al.  Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Immediate Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the Dutch Randomized Phase III PREOPANC Trial. , 2020, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  C. V. van Eijck,et al.  Establishing and Coordinating a Nationwide Multidisciplinary Study Group: Lessons Learned by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[9]  M. Wouters,et al.  The Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing: Achieving Codman's Dream on a Nationwide Basis. , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[10]  G. Kazemier,et al.  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 , 2019, Trials.

[11]  H. Pitt,et al.  Optimal Pancreatic Surgery: Are We Making Progress in North America? , 2019, Annals of surgery.

[12]  J. Kench,et al.  The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR): a clinical quality registry to monitor and improve care in upper gastrointestinal cancers , 2019, BMJ Open.

[13]  U. Boggi,et al.  Benchmarks in Pancreatic Surgery: A Novel Tool for Unbiased Outcome Comparisons. , 2019, Annals of surgery.

[14]  J. Izbicki,et al.  Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery in Europe , 2019, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[15]  M. Dijkgraaf,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. , 2019, The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology.

[16]  F. Burdío,et al.  Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Approach for Pancreatoduodenectomy: The PADULAP Randomized Controlled Trial , 2018, Annals of surgery.

[17]  G. Kazemier,et al.  Variation in hospital mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy is related to failure to rescue rather than major complications: a nationwide audit. , 2018, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[18]  P. Senthilnathan,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours , 2017, The British journal of surgery.

[19]  Y. Fong,et al.  Developing a robotic pancreas program: the Dutch experience. , 2017, Journal of visualized surgery.

[20]  H. Buhr,et al.  The pancreatic surgery registry (StuDoQ|Pancreas) of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) – presentation and systematic quality evaluation , 2017, Trials.

[21]  D. Gouma,et al.  The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After , 2017, Surgery.

[22]  S. Chalikonda,et al.  Frailty predicts risk of life-threatening complications and mortality after pancreatic resections. , 2016, Surgery.

[23]  V. Lemmens,et al.  Volume-outcome relationships in pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer. , 2016, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[24]  V. Lemmens,et al.  Elderly Patients Strongly Benefit from Centralization of Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Study , 2016, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[25]  D. Winchester,et al.  The 90-Day Mortality After Pancreatectomy for Cancer Is Double the 30-Day Mortality: More than 20,000 Resections From the National Cancer Data Base , 2014, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[26]  D. Gouma,et al.  Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality , 2012, The British journal of surgery.

[27]  M. Koch,et al.  Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. , 2011, Surgery.

[28]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Complications, Failure to Rescue, and Mortality With Major Inpatient Surgery in Medicare Patients , 2009, Annals of surgery.

[29]  H. Pitt,et al.  ACS-NSQIP has the potential to create an HPB-NSQIP option. , 2009, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[30]  D. Gouma,et al.  Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). , 2007, Surgery.

[31]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[32]  Abe Fingerhut,et al.  Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. , 2007, Surgery.

[33]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  J. Sanabria,et al.  Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. , 1992, Surgery.

[35]  B. Andersson,et al.  First results from the Swedish National Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer Registry. , 2019, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[36]  G. Kazemier,et al.  Textbook Outcome: Nationwide Analysis of a Novel Quality Measure in Pancreatic Surgery. , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[37]  G. Kazemier,et al.  Nationwide prospective audit of pancreatic surgery: design, accuracy, and outcomes of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. , 2017, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.