Clinical Impact of Stump Closure Reinforced With Hemopatch on the Prevention of Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Interaction analysis of subgroup effects in randomized trials: the essential methodological points

Subgroup analysis aims to identify subgroups (usually defined by baseline/demographic characteristics), who would (or not) benefit from an intervention under specific conditions. Often performed post hoc (not pre-specified in the protocol), subgroup analyses are prone to elevated type I error due to multiple testing, inadequate power, and inappropriate statistical interpretation. Aside from the well-known Bonferroni correction, subgroup treatment interaction tests can provide useful information to support the hypothesis. Using data from a previously published randomized trial where a p value of 0.015 was found for the comparison between standard and Hemopatch® groups in (the subgroup of) 135 patients who had hand-sewn pancreatic stump closure we first sought to determine whether there was interaction between the number and proportion of the dependent event of interest (POPF) among the subgroup population (patients with hand-sewn stump closure and use of Hemopatch®), Next, we calculated the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) and the "attributable proportion" (AP). The p value of the interaction was p = 0.034, the RERI was - 0.77 (p = 0.0204) (the probability of POPF was 0.77 because of the interaction), the RERI was 13% (patients are 13% less likely to sustain POPF because of the interaction), and the AP was - 0.616 (61.6% of patients who did not develop POPF did so because of the interaction). Although no causality can be implied, Hemopatch® may potentially decrease the POPF after distal pancreatectomy when the stump is closed hand-sewn. The hypothesis generated by our subgroup analysis requires confirmation by a specific, randomized trial, including only patients undergoing hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic stump after distal pancreatectomy.Trial registration: INS-621000-0760.

Effect of artificial or autologous coverage of the pancreatic remnant or anastomosis on postoperative pancreatic fistulas after partial pancreatectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas remain a driver of major complications after partial pancreatectomy. It is unclear whether coverage of the anastomosis or pancreatic remnant can reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of autologous or artificial coverage of the pancreatic remnant or anastomosis on outcomes after partial pancreatectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to March 2024. All RCTs analysing a coverage method in patients undergoing partial pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome was postoperative pancreatic fistula development. Subgroup analyses for pancreatoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy and artificial or autologous coverage were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs with 2326 patients were included. In the overall analysis, coverage decreased the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas by 29% (OR 0.71, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.93, P < 0.01). This decrease was also seen in the 12 RCTs covering the remnant after distal pancreatectomy (OR 0.69, 95% c.i. 0.51 to 0.94, P < 0.02) and the 4 RCTs applying autologous coverage after pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy (OR 0.53, 95% c.i. 0.29 to 0.96, P < 0.04). Other subgroup analyses (artificial coverage or pancreatoduodenectomy) showed no statistically significant differences. The secondary endpoints of mortality, reoperations, and re-interventions were each affected positively by the use of coverage techniques. The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of coverage, whether artificial or autologous, is beneficial after partial pancreatectomy, especially in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy with autologous coverage.

Pancreatic stump closure after distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing non-autologous versus no reinforcement: Value of prediction intervals

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis of randomized trials aimed to assess the benefits and harms of non-autologous versus no reinforcement of the pancreatic stump following distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

It was performed in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 Guidelines. (registered in PROSPERO ID: EROCRD42021286863).

RESULTS

Nine relevant articles (between 2009 and 2021) were retrieved, comparing non-autologous reinforcement (757 patients) with non-reinforcement (740 patients) after PD. Pooled analysis showed a statistically significant lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in the reinforcement group (RR ​= ​0.677; 95 ​% CI [0.479, 0.956], p ​= ​0.027). The 95 ​% predictive interval (0.267-1.718) showed heterogeneity. Non-autologous reinforcement other than with "Tachosil®" was effective (subgroup analysis). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that covering the stump with non-autologous reinforcement other than Tachosil® had a preventive effect on the onset of POPF.

Fibrin sealants for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic surgery. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centres to reduce POPF rate. However, the use of fibrin sealant during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use for the prevention of POPF (grade B or C) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery compared to no fibrin sealant use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 09 March 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs, randomising 1989 participants, comparing fibrin sealant use versus no fibrin sealant use for different locations: stump closure reinforcement (eight trials), pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement (five trials), or main pancreatic duct occlusion (two trials). Six RCTs were carried out in single centres; two in dual centres; and six in multiple centres. One RCT was conducted in Australia; one in Austria; two in France; three in Italy; one in Japan; two in the Netherlands; two in South Korea; and two in the USA. The mean age of the participants ranged from 50.0 years to 66.5 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy We included eight RCTs involving 1119 participants: 559 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 560 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.21; 5 studies, 1002 participants; low-certainty evidence) and overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 4 studies, 893 participants; low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 199 people (155 to 256 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 212 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1051 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may reduce the reoperation rate slightly (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90; 3 studies, 623 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in five studies (732 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life or cost-effectiveness. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included five RCTs involving 519 participants: 248 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 271 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.48; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (Peto OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.06; 5 studies, 517 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reoperation rate (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and total hospital cost (MD -1489.00 US dollars, 95% CI -3256.08 to 278.08; 1 study, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 130 people (70 to 240 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 97 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference both in overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in total length of hospital stay (MD -0.33 days, 95% CI -2.30 to 1.63; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in two studies (194 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life. Application of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy We included two RCTs involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and reoperation rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the total length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 2 studies, 351 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-certainty evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report POPF, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence, fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. The effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality is uncertain in people undergoing either distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Polyethylene glycol-coated haemostatic patch for prevention of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The potential of haemostatic patches to reduce the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula remains unclear. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a polyethylene glycol-coated haemostatic patch on the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

In this randomized, single-centre, clinical trial, patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized 1 : 1 to receive pancreatojejunostomy reinforced with two polyethylene glycol-coated haemostatic patches (patch group) or without any reinforcement (control group). The primary outcome was clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, defined as grade B/C according to International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria, within 90 days. Key secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, total rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and overall complication rate.

RESULTS

From 15 May 2018 to 22 June 2020, 72 patients were randomized, and 64 were included in the analyses (31 in the patch group and 33 in the control group). The risk of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was reduced by 90 per cent (OR 0.10, 95 per cent c.i. 0.01 to 0.89, P = 0.039). Moreover, the use of the polyethylene glycol-coated patch retained its protective effect on clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula in a multivariable regression model, significantly reducing the risk of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula by 93 per cent (OR 0.07, 95 per cent c.i. 0.01 to 0.67, P = 0.021), regardless of patient age, sex, or fistula risk score. The incidence of secondary outcomes did not significantly differ between the groups. One patient died within 90 days in the patch group versus three patients in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

A polyethylene glycol-coated haemostatic patch reduced the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03419676 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Hemopatch® is effective and safe to use: real-world data from a prospective European registry study

Surgical procedures are often impeded by bleeding and/or leakage of body fluids. These complications cannot always be resolved by conventional surgical techniques. Hemopatch® is a hemostatic patch that also functions as a sealant. Here we document the effectiveness and safety of Hemopatch® for routine procedures of multiple surgical disciplines. To this end, we performed a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational registry study. Patients were eligible if they had received Hemopatch® during an open or minimally invasive procedure in one of these specialties: hepatobiliary, cardiovascular, urological, neurological/spinal, general, or lung surgery. Patients were excluded if they had a known hypersensitivity to bovine proteins or brilliant blue, intraoperative pulsatile or severe bleeding and/or infection at the target application site (TAS). The primary endpoint for intraoperative effectiveness was hemostasis assessed as the percentage of patients achieving hemostasis within 2 min and the percentage of patients achieving hemostasis without re-bleeding at the time of surgical closure. The registry enrolled 621 patients at 23 study sites in six European countries. Six hundred twenty patients had completed follow-up information. Hemostasis within 2 min was achieved at 463 (74.5%) of all 621 TASs. Hemostasis without re-bleeding was observed at 620 (99.8%) TASs. Adverse events were reported in 64 patients (10.3%). This Hemopatch® registry shows that Hemopatch® efficiently establishes hemostasis and sealing in a variety of surgical specialties, including minimally invasive procedures. Furthermore, we provide evidence for the safety of Hemopatch® across all the specialties included in the registry. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03392662.