Complications and failure-to-rescue after pancreatectomy and hospital participation in the targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry

For whom the bell tolls: assessing the incremental costs associated with failure to rescue after elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Failure to rescue after elective surgery is associated with increased healthcare costs. These costs are poorly understood and have not been reported for colorectal surgery. This study aimed to assess the incremental costs of failure to rescue after elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of adult patients identified in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019 who underwent an elective colectomy or proctectomy. Patients were stratified into 4 groups: uneventful recovery, successfully rescued, failure to rescue, and died without rescue attempts. "Rescue" was defined as admissions with ≥1 procedure code ≥1 day after the initial procedure. The primary outcome was total admission costs.

RESULTS

Of 451,490 admissions for elective colorectal resection, 94.6% had an uneventful recovery, 4.8% were successfully rescued, 0.4% were failure to rescue, and 0.3% died without rescue attempts. The median total hospital cost for the uneventful recovery cohort was $16,751 (IQR, $12,611-$23,116), for the successfully rescued cohort was $42,295 (IQR, $27,959-$67,077), for the failure-to-rescue cohort was $53,182 (IQR, $30,852-$95,615), and for the died without attempted rescue cohort was $29,296 (IQR, $19,812-$45,919). When comparing cost quantiles by regression analysis, failure-to-rescue patients had significantly higher costs than the successfully rescued patients for the last 3 quantiles (fifth quantile [90th percentile], $163,963 vs $106,521; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Across a nationally representative cohort, the median total hospital costs for patients who failed to be rescued were $10,887 more than for those who were successfully rescued. These findings emphasize the importance of shared decision making and medical futility and highlight opportunities for resource optimization after postoperative complications.

The role of national population-based registries in pancreatic cancer surgery research

Research and innovation are critical for advancing the multidisciplinary management of pancreatic cancer. Registry-based studies (RBSs) are a complement to randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Compared with RCTs, RBSs offer cost-effectiveness, larger sample sizes, and representation of real-world clinical practice. National population-based registries (NPBRs) aim to cover the entire national population, and studies based on NPBRs are, compared to non-NPBRs, less prone to selection bias. The last decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in NPBRs in pancreatic cancer surgery, which has undoubtedly added invaluable knowledge to the body of evidence on pancreatic cancer management. However, several methodological shortcomings may compromise the quality of registry-based studies. These include a lack of control over data collection and a lack of reporting on the quality of the source registry or database in terms of validation of coverage and data completeness and accuracy. Furthermore, there is a significant risk of double publication from the most commonly used registries as well as the inclusion of historical data that is not relevant or representative of research questions addressing current practices.

Mortality and failure-to-rescue after esophagectomy in the procedure-targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry

BACKGROUND

The association between procedural volume and esophagectomy outcomes has been established, but the relationship between higher levels of care and esophagectomy outcomes has not been explored. This study aims to investigate whether hospital participation in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) esophagectomy-targeted registry is associated with superior outcomes.

METHODS

The 2016-2020 ACS NSQIP standard and esophagectomy-targeted registries were queried. Esophagectomy outcomes were analyzed overall and stratified by esophagectomy type (Ivor Lewis vs. transhiatal vs. 3-field McKeown).

RESULTS

A total of 2181 and 5449 esophagectomy cases were identified in the standard and targeted databases (68% Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). The median age was 65 years and 80% were male. Preoperative characteristics were largely comparable. On univariate analysis, targeted hospitals were associated with lower mortality (2% vs. 4%, p < 0.01) and failure-to-rescue rates (11% vs. 17%, p < 0.01), higher likelihood of an optimal outcome (62% vs. 58%, p = 0.01), and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs. 10 days, p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy at targeted centers was associated with reduced odds of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.57 and 95% confidence intervals 0.35-0.90] and failure-to-rescue [OR 0.54 (0.33-0.90)] with no difference in serious morbidity or optimal outcome. There was no statistically significant difference in odds of mortality or failure to rescue in targeted versus standard centers when performing transhiatal or McKeown esophagectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagectomy performed at hospitals participating in the targeted ACS NSQIP is associated with roughly half the risk of mortality compared to the standard registry. The factors underlying this relationship may be valuable in quality improvement.

A critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: From crude mortality to composite outcomes

BACKGROUND

Indicators of surgical outcomes are designed to objectively evaluate surgical performance, enabling comparisons among surgeons and institutions. In recent years, there has been a surge in complex indicators of perioperative short-term and long-term outcomes. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview and a critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators, with a special emphasis on hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of outcome measures was conducted using a combined text and MeSH search strategy to identify relevant articles focused on perioperative outcomes, specifically within HPB surgery.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 624 records, and 94 studies were included in the analysis. Included papers were classified depending on whether they assessed intraoperative or postoperative specific or composite outcomes, and whether they assessed purely clinical or combined clinical and socio-economic indicators. Specific indicators included in composite outcomes were categorized into three main domains: intraoperative metrics, postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes. While postoperative mortality, complications, hospital stay and readmission were the indicators most frequently included in composite outcomes, oncological outcomes were rarely considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of surgical outcomes has shifted from the simplistic assessment of crude mortality rates to complex composite outcomes. Whether the recent explosion of publications on these topics has a clinical impact in real life is questionable. Outcomes from the patient perspective, integrating social and financial indicators, are not yet integrated into most of these composite analytical tools but should not be underestimated.

Rescue from complications after pancreaticoduodenectomies at a low-volume Caribbean center: Value of tailored peri-pancreatectomy protocols

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a technically complex operation, with a relatively high risk for complications. The ability to rescue patients from post-PD complications is as a recognized quality measure. Tailored protocols were instituted at our low volume facility in the year 2013.

AIM

To document the rate of rescue from post-PD complications with tailored protocols in place as a measure of quality.

METHODS

A retrospective audit was performed to collect data from patients who experienced major post-PD complications at a low volume pancreatic surgery unit in Trinidad and Tobago between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2023. Standardized definitions from the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery were used to define post-PD complications, and the modified Clavien-Dindo classification was used to classify post-PD complications.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 113 patients at a mean age of 57.5 years (standard deviation [SD] ± 9.23; range: 30-90; median: 56) underwent PDs at this facility. Major complications were recorded in 33 (29.2%) patients at a mean age of 53.8 years (SD: ± 7.9). Twenty-nine (87.9%) patients who experienced major morbidity were salvaged after aggressive treatment of their complication. Four (3.5%) died from bleeding pseudoaneurysm (1), septic shock secondary to a bile leak (1), anastomotic leak (1), and myocardial infarction (1). There was a significantly greater salvage rate in patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists scores ≤ 2 (93.3% vs 25%; P = 0.0024).

CONCLUSION

This paper adds to the growing body of evidence that volume alone should not be used as a marker of quality for patients requiring PD. Despite low volumes at our facility, we demonstrated that 87.9% of patients were rescued from major complications. We attributed this to several factors including development of rescue protocols, the competence of the pancreatic surgery teams and continuous, and adaptive learning by the entire institution, culminating in the development of tailored peri-pancreatectomy protocols.

Pancreaticoduodenectomies with Concurrent Colectomies: Indications, Technical Issues, Complications, and Oncological Outcomes

Multi-visceral resections for colon and pancreatic cancer (PDAC) are feasible, safe, and justified for early and late outcomes. However, the use of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with concurrent colectomies is highly debatable in terms of morbidity and oncological benefits. Based on current literature data, this review assesses the early and long-term outcomes of PD with colectomies. The association represents a challenging but feasible option for a few patients with PDAC or locally advanced right colon cancer when negative resection margins are anticipated because long-term survival can be achieved. Concurrent colectomies during PD should be cautiously approached because they may significantly increase complication rates, including severe ones. Thus, patients should be fit enough to overcome potential severe complications. Patients with PD and colectomies can be classified as borderline resectable, considering the high risk of developing postoperative complications. Carefully selecting patients suitable for PD with concurrent colectomies is paramount to mitigate the potentially severe complications of the two surgical procedures and maximize the oncological benefits. These procedures should be performed at high-volume centers with extensive experience in pancreatectomies and colectomies, and each patient situation should be assessed using a multimodal approach, including high-quality imaging and neoadjuvant therapies, in a multidisciplinary team discussion.