Incorporation of Procedure-specific Risk into the ACS-NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator Improves the Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality after Pancreatoduodenectomy

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 265, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 978-986

  McMillan, Matthew T ^a   Allegrini, Valentina ^b   Asbun, Horacio J ^c   Ball, Chad G ^d   Bassi, Claudio ^b   Beane, Joal D ^e   Behrman, Stephen W ^f   Berger, Adam C ^g   Bloomston, Mark ^h   Callery, Mark P ⁱ   Christein, John D ^j   Dickson, Euan ^k   Dixon, Elijah ^d   Drebin, Jeffrey A ^a   Fernandez Del Castillo, Carlos ^l   Fisher, William E ^m   Fong, Zhi Ven ^l   Haverick, Ericka ^h   Hollis, Robert H ^j   House, Michael G ^e   Hughes, Steven J ⁿ   Jamieson, Nigel B ^k   Kent, Tara S ⁱ   Kowalsky, Stacy J ^o   Kunstman, John W ^p   Malleo, Giuseppe ^b   McElhany, Amy L ^m   Salem, Ronald R ^p   Soares, Kevin C ^q   Sprys, Michael H ^a   Valero, Vicente ^q   Watkins, Ammara A ⁱ   Wolfgang, Christopher L ^q   Zureikat, Amer H ^o   Vollmer, Charles M ^a   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

^c MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^e INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^g THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

ⁱ HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^l MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^m BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^p YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^q JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

complications; death; Fistula Risk Score; mortality; pancreatic fistula; pancreatoduodenectomy

Indexed keywords

OCTREOTIDE; SEALANT;

ADULT; AGED; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS NATIONAL SURGICAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SURGICAL RISK CACULATOR; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CAREER; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DISEASE ASSESSMENT; FEMALE; FISTULA RISK SCORE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY RATE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PANCREAS FISTULA; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; PATIENT RISK; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SURGICAL MORTALITY; SURGICAL RISK; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TREATMENT DURATION; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL TRIAL; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MORTALITY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURVIVAL RATE; UNITED STATES;

CAUSE OF DEATH; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MORBIDITY; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REOPERATION; RISK ADJUSTMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SURVIVAL RATE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84970016821     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001796     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Whipple AO. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for islet carcinoma: a five-year follow-up. Ann Surg. 1945;121:847-852.
2. Greenblatt DY, Kelly KJ, Rajamanickam V, et al. Preoperative factors predict perioperative morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2126-2135.
3. Vollmer CM Jr, Sanchez N, Gondek S, et al. A root-cause analysis of mortality following major pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:89-102.
4. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, et al. 1423 pancreaticoduodenec-tomies for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1199-1210.
5. Raut CP, Tseng JF, Sun CC, et al. Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocar-cinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;246:52-60.
6. Lewis R, Drebin JA, Callery MP, et al. A contemporary analysis of survival for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15:49-60.
7. Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:833-842.
8. Hill JS, Zhou Z, Simons JP, et al. A simple risk score to predict in-hospital mortality after pancreatic resection for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17: 1802-1807.
9. McMillan MT, Soi S, Asbun HJ, et al. Risk-adjusted outcomes of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: a model for performance evaluation. Ann Surg. 2015 [Epub ahead of print].
10. McMillan MT, Vollmer CM Jr. Predictive factors for pancreatic fistula following pancreatectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014;399:811-824.
11. Muscari F, Suc B, Kirzin S, et al. Risk factors for mortality and intra-abdominal complications after pancreatoduodenectomy: multivariate analysis in 300 patients. Surgery. 2006;139:591-598.
12. Aranha GV, Aaron JM, Shoup M, et al. Current management of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2006;140:561-568.
13. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, et al. Does pancreatic duct stenting decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1280-1290.
14. Veillette G, Dominguez I, Ferrone C, et al. Implications and management of pancreatic fistulas following pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Arch Surg. 2008;143:476-481.
15. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2117-2127.
16. 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.
17. Enomoto LM, Gusani NJ, Dillon PW, et al. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on mortality, length of stay, and cost of pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:690-700.
18. Yoshioka R, Yasunaga H, Hasegawa K, et al. Impact of hospital volume on hospital mortality, length of stay, and total costs after pancreaticoduodenec-tomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101:523-529.
19. Callery MP, Pratt WB, Kent TS, et al. A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:1-14.
20. Miller BC, Christein JD, Behrman SW, et al. A multi-institutional external validation of the fistula risk score for pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:172-179.
21. Shubert CR, Wagie AE, Farnell MB, et al. Clinical Risk Score to predict pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: independent external validation for open and laparoscopic approaches. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:689-698.
22. Pratt WB, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. Risk prediction for development of pancreatic fistula using the ISGPF classification scheme. World J Surg. 2008;32:419-428.
23. McMillan MT, Vollmer CM Jr, Asbun HJ, et al. The characterization and prediction of ISGPF grade c fistulas following pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20:262-276.
24. Van der Kooij A, Meulman J. MURALS: Multiple regression and optimal scaling using alternating least squares. Softstat'97. 1997;1:99-106.
25. Porembka MR, Hall BL, Hirbe M, et al. Quantitative weighting of postoperative complications based on the accordion severity grading system: demonstration of potential impact using the american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:286-298.
26. Sanford DE, Woolsey CA, Hall BL, et al. Variations in definition and method of retrieval of complications influence outcomes statistics after pancreato-duodenectomy: comparison of NSQIP with non-NSQIP methods. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:407-415.
27. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.
28. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonpara-metric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837-845.
29. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21:128-138.
30. Spiegelhalter DJ. Probabilistic prediction in patient management and clinical trials. Stat Med. 1986;5:421-433.
31. Rufibach K. Use of Brier score to assess binary predictions. J Clinic Epidemiol. 2010;63:938-939.
32. Hoaglin DC, Iglewicz B, Tukey JW. Performance of Some Resistant Rules for Outlier Labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1986;81:991-999.
33. Medicare program; revisions to payment policies under the physician fee schedule, clinical laboratory fee schedule & other revisions to Part B for CY 2014. Final rule with comment period. Fed Regi st. 2013;78:74229-74823.
34. Edelstein AI, Kwasny MJ, Suleiman LI, et al. Can the American College of surgeons risk calculator predict 30-day complications after knee and hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:5-10.
35. Sherman KL, Gordon EJ, Mahvi DM, et al. Surgeons' perceptions of public reporting of hospital and individual surgeon quality. Medical Care. 2013;51:1069-1075.
36. Paruch JL, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY. An opportunity to improve informed consent and shared decision making: the role of the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator in oncology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:5-7.
37. Pratt W, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. Optimal surgical performance attenuates physiologic risk in high-acuity operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:717-730.
38. 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.