World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 419–428 | Cite as

Risk Prediction for Development of Pancreatic Fistula Using the ISGPF Classification Scheme

  • Wande B. Pratt
  • Mark P. Callery
  • Charles M. VollmerJr.



The International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme has become a useful system for characterizing the clinical impact of pancreatic fistula. We sought to identify predictive factors that predispose patients to fistula, specifically those with clinical relevance (grades B/C), and to describe the clinical and economic significance of risk stratification within this framework.


Overall, 233 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies were performed between October 2001 and March 2007 in our institution. Pancreatic fistula is defined according to the ISGPF classification scheme. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for pancreatic fistula development. These features were then analyzed to determine whether additive risk severity equates to worsening clinical and economic impact.


Fistulas of any extent occurred in 60 patients, but only 31 (14%) were clinically relevant. There are no identifiable risk factors for grade A biochemical fistulas. Multivariate analysis shows that small pancreatic duct size (<3 mm); soft gland texture; ampullary, duodenal, cystic, or islet cell pathology; and increased intraoperative blood loss (> 1,000 ml) are associated with clinically relevant fistulae. An additive effect is further illustrated, in which clinical and economic outcomes progressively worsen as risk profile increases. Each additional risk factor increases the odds of developing a clinically relevant fistula by 52%.


For pancreatoduodenectomy, small duct size; soft gland texture; ampullary, duodenal, cystic, or islet cell pathology; and increased intraoperative blood loss are convincing risk factors for the development clinically relevant fistulae as judged by ISGPF classification. As risk profile accrues, patients suffer more complications, encounter longer hospital stays, and incur greater hospital costs. These outcomes can be predicted in the operating room through accurate delineation of high-risk glands.


Pancreatic Duct Pancreatic Fistula Total Hospital Cost Intensive Care Unit Cost Small Pancreatic Duct 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work is supported in part by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and the PASTEUR program at Harvard Medical School. W.B.P. is the recipient of a Clinical Research Fellowship Award funded through the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Harvard PASTEUR Program and Office of Enrichment Programs.

The authors acknowledge the support and assistance in the conduct of this study of Gail Piatkowski, Kathleen Murray, Elizabeth Wood, and Kenneth Sands from the Department of Health Care Quality Outcomes at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.


  1. 1.
    Tsiotos GG, Farnell MB, Sarr MG (1999) Are the results of pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer improving? World J Surg 23:913–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartoli FG, Arnone GB, Ravera G et al. (1991) Pancreatic fistula and relative mortality in malignant disease after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Review and statistical meta-analysis regarding 15 years of literature. Anticancer Res 11:1831–1848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poon RT, Lo SH, Fong D et al. (2002) Prevention of pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 183:42–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA et al. (1997) Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 226:248–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM et al. (2000) Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 232:786–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balcolm JH, Rattner DW, Warshaw AL et al. (2001) Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch Surg 136:391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin JW, Cameron JL, Yeo CJ et al. (2004) Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula. J Gastrointest Surg 8:951–959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J et al. (2006) One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 244:10–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T et al. (2007) Clinical and economic validation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme. Ann Surg 245:443–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowy AM, Lee JE, Pisters PW et al. (1997) Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease. Ann Surg 226:632–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shyr YM, Su CH, Wu CW et al. (2003) Does drainage fluid amylase reflect pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy? World J Surg 27:606–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bassi C, Butturini G, Molinari E et al. (2004) Pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatic resection: the importance of definitions. Dig Surg 21:54–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M et al. (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al. (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T et al (2006) Postoperative pancreatic fistulas are not equivalent after proximal, distal, and central pancreatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264–1279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanounou T, Pratt WB, Fischer JE et al. (2007) Deviation Based Cost Modeling (DBCM): a generalizable model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of clinical pathways. J Am Coll Surg 204:570–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M et al. (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78:356–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD et al. (2000) Does prophylactic octreotide decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg 232:419–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buchler M, Friess H, Klempa I et al. (1992) Role of octreotide in the prevention of postoperative complications following pancreatic resection. Am J Surg 163:125–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marcus SG, Cohen H, Ranson JH (1995) Optimal management of the pancreatic remnant after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 221:635–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Berge Henegouwen MI, De Wit LT, Van Gulik TM et al. (1997) Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: drainage versus resection of the pancreatic remnant. J Am Coll Surg 185:18–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang YM, Tian XD, Zhuan Y et al. (2005) Risk factors of pancreatic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 11:2456–2461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yeh TS, Jan YY, Jeng LB et al. (1997) Pancreaticojejunal anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy—multivariate analysis of perioperative risk factors. J Surg Res 67:119–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sato N, Yamaguchi K, Chijiiwa K et al. (1998) Risk analysis of pancreatic fistula after pancreatic head resection. Arch Surg 133:1094–1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matsusue S, Takeda H, Nakamura Y et al. (1998) A prospective analysis of the factors influencing pancreaticojejunostomy performed using a single method, in 100 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Surg Today 28:719–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Al Sharaf C, Ishe I, Dawiskiba S et al. (1997) Characteristics of the gland remnant predict complication after subtotal pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 14:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hamanaka Y, Nishihara K, Hamasaki T et al. (1996) Pancreatic juice output after pancreatoduodenectomy in relation to pancreatic consistency, duct size, and leakage. Surgery 119:281–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Maher MM et al. (1995) A prospective randomized trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 222:580–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ishikawa O, Ohigashi H, Imaoka S et al. (1991) Concomitant benefit of preoperative irradiation in preventing pancreas fistula formation after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 126:885–889 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Friess H, Malfertheiner P, Isenmann R et al. (1996) The risk of pancreaticointestinal anastomosis can be predicted preoperatively. Pancreas 13:202–208PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wande B. Pratt
    • 1
  • Mark P. Callery
    • 1
  • Charles M. VollmerJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations