Relative contributions of complications and failure to rescue on mortality in older patients undergoing pancreatectomy

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 263, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 385-391

  Tamirisa, Nina P ^a,b   Parmar, Abhishek D ^a,b   Vargas, Gabriela M ^a   Mehta, Hemalkumar B ^a   Molly Kilbane, E ^c   Hall, Bruce L ^d,e,f,g   Pitt, Henry A ^h   Riall, Taylor S ^a  

^a University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH   (United States)

^d BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS   (United States)

^g JC Healthcare   (United States)

^h TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Complications; Failure to rescue; Mortality; Pancreatectomy

Indexed keywords

ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE; ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; ASCITES; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; COMORBIDITY; DIABETES MELLITUS; FAILURE TO RESCUE (HEALTH CARE); FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; PANCREAS RESECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEPTIC SHOCK; AGE; FACTUAL DATABASE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PANCREATECTOMY; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS;

EID: 84955649159     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001093     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Silber JH, Williams SV, Krakauer H, et al. Hospital and patient characteristics associated with death after surgery: a study of adverse occurrence and failure to rescue. Med Care. 1992;30:615-629.
2. Needleman J, Buerhaus PI, Vanderboom C, et al. Using present-on-admission coding to improve exclusion rules for quality metrics: the case of failure-to-rescue. Med Care. 2013;51:722-730.
3. Gajdos C, Kile D, Hawn MT, et al. Advancing age and 30-day adverse outcomes after nonemergent general surgeries. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61: 1608-1614.
4. Haigh PI, Bilimoria KY, DiFronzo LA. Early postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in the elderly. Arch Surg. 2011;146:715-723.
5. Simons JP, Shah SA, Ng SC, et al. National complication rates after pancreatectomy: beyond mere mortality. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13: 1798-1805.
6. Spanheimer PM, Cyr AR, Liao J, et al. Complications and survival associated with operative procedures in patients with unresectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:697-701.
7. Riall TS, Reddy DM, Nealon WH, et al. The effect of age on short-term outcomes after pancreatic resection: a population-based study. Ann Surg. 2008;248:459-467.
8. Finlayson E, Fan Z, Birkmeyer JD. Outcomes in octogenarians undergoing high-risk cancer operation: a national study. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205: 729-734.
9. Makary MA, Winter JM, Cameron JL, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the very elderly. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:347-356.
10. Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S, et al. A pancreaticoduodenectomy is acceptable for periampullary tumors in the elderly, even in patients over 80 years of age. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16:675-680.
11. McPhee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF, et al. Perioperative mortality for pancrea-tectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg. 2007;246:246-253.
12. Ghaferi AA, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD, et al. Hospital characteristics associated with failure to rescue from complications after pancreatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:325-330.
13. American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Pro-gram [ACS-NSQIP Key Studies Fact Sheet Web site]. Available at: http://site.acsnsqip.org/downloads/. Accessed January 2013.
14. Pitt HA, Kilbane M, Strasberg SM, et al. ACS-NSQIP has the potential to create an HPB-NSQIP option. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11:405-413.
15. Parikh P, Shiloach M, Cohen ME, et al. Pancreatectomy risk calculator: an ACS-NSQIP resource. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12:488-497.
16. Parmar AD, Sheffield KM, Vargas GM, et al. Factors associated with delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15: 763-772.
17. ACS-NSQIP. User guide for the participant use data file. Available at: http://site.acsnsqip.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ACS-NSQIP-Participant-User-Data-File-User-Guide-06.pdf. Accessed January 2013.
18. Kow AW, Sadayan NA, Ernest A, et al. Is pancreaticoduodenectomy justified in elderly patients? Surgeon. 2012;10:128-136.
19. Sulpice L, Rayar M, D'Halluin PN, et al. Impact of age over 75 years on outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Res. 2012;178:181-187.
20. Teh SH, Diggs BS, Deveney CW, et al. Patient and hospital characteristics on the variance of perioperative outcomes for pancreatic resection in the United States: a plea for outcome-based and not volume-based referral guidelines. Arch Surg. 2009;144:713-721.
21. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, et al. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative compli-cations. Ann Surg. 2005;242:326-341; discussion 341-323.
22. Eppsteiner RW, Csikesz NG, McPhee JT, et al. Surgeon volume impacts hospital mortality for pancreatic resection. Ann Surg. 2009;249:635-640.
23. Nathan H, Cameron JL, Choti MA, et al. The volume-outcomes effect in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: hospital versus surgeon contributions and specificity of the relationship. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:528-538.
24. Pecorelli N, Balzano G, Capretti G, et al. Effect of surgeon volume on outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy in a high-volume hospital. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:518-523.
25. Riall T, Nealon W, Goodwin J, et al. Outcomes following pancreatic resection: variability among high volume providers. Surgery. 2008;144:133-140.
26. Johnston M, Arora S, King D, et al. Escalation of care and failure to rescue: a multicenter, multiprofessional qualitative study. Surgery. 2014;155:989-994.
27. Johnston MJ, King D, Arora S, et al. Requirements of a new communication technology for handover and the escalation of patient care: a multi-stakeholder analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20:486-497.
28. Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE, et al. Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210: 6-16.
29. Lawson EH, Louie R, Zingmond DS, et al. A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical compli-cations. Ann Surg. 2012;256:973-981.
30. Cima RR, Lackore KA, Nehring SA, et al. How best to measure surgical quality? Comparison of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (AHRQ-PSI) and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) postoperative adverse events at a single institution. Surgery. 2011;150:943-949.
31. Carroll JE, Smith JK, Simons JP, et al. Redefining mortality after pancreatic cancer resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1701-1708.