Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fast-Track Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Factors Associated with Early Discharge

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a complex surgery frequently associated with prolonged hospitalizations. However, there are a subset of patients discharged within 5 days from surgery; the preoperative and intraoperative characteristics of this subset are unknown.

Methods

The NSQIP Targeted Pancreatectomy Dataset was used from 2014 to 2016. Patients who died within 30 days were excluded. A total of 10,741 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed for preoperative and intraoperative ACS-NSQIP variables to identify predictors of early discharge. Early discharge was defined as discharge 3–5 days after surgery.

Results

A total of 1105 patients (10.3%) were discharged within 5 days following pancreaticoduodenectomy. On multivariable analysis, preoperative factors associated with early discharge included younger age (OR 0.988, p < 0.001), non-obesity (OR 0.737, p = 0.001), those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 1.424, p < 0.001), and lack of COPD (OR 0.489, p = 0.005) or hypertension (OR 0.805, p = 0.007). Intraoperative factors associated with early discharge on multivariable analysis were shorter operation duration (OR 0.999, p = 0.002), minimally invasive surgery (OR 3.537, p < 0.001), and hard pancreatic texture (OR 1.480, p < 0.001). Intraoperative factors associated with non-early discharge were epidural placement (OR 0.485, p < 0.001), drain placement (OR 0.308, p < 0.001), and jejunostomy tube placement (OR 0.278, p < 0.001). Patients discharged within 5 days had a 14.7% readmission rate compared to 17.0% for later discharges (p = 0.047).

Conclusions

Multiple preoperative and intraoperative factors, including some that are potentially modifiable, were significantly associated with early discharge after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients with these characteristics may benefit from enhanced recovery after surgery programs and expedited disposition planning postoperatively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fong ZV, Ferrone CR, Thayer SP et al (2014) Understanding hospital readmissions after pancreaticoduodenectomy: can we prevent them? A 10-year contemporary experience with 1,173 patients at the Massachusetts General Hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 18(1):137–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tani M, Kawai M, Hirono S et al (2012) Use of omentum or falciform ligament does not decrease complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: nationwide survey of the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery. Surgery 151:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cameron JL, He J (2015) Two thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg 220(4):530–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moses H 3rd, Matheson DH, Dorsey ER et al (2013) The anatomy of health care in the United States. JAMA 210(18):1947–1963

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke A (1996) Why are we trying to reduce length of stay? Evaluation of the costs and benefits of reducing time in hospital must start from the objectives that govern the changes. Qual Health Care 5(3):172–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fernández-del Castillo C, Morales-Oyarvide V, McGrath D et al (2012) Evolution of the Whipple procedure at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Surgery 152(3 Suppl 1):S56–S63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sharpe SM, Talamonti MS, Wang CE et al (2015) Early national experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma: a comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy from the national cancer data base. J Am Coll Surg 221(1):175–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baker EH, Ross SW, Seshadri R et al (2015) Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role in 2014 and beyond. J Gastrointest Oncol 6(4):396–405

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Schneider EB, Hyder O, Wolfgang CL (2013) Provider versus patient factors impacting hospital length of stay after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 154(2):152–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Coolsen MM, van Dam RM, van der Wilt AA et al (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery with particular emphasis on pancreaticoduodenectomies. World J Surg 37(8):1909–1918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2044-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nussbaum DP, Penne K, Stinnett SS et al (2015) A standardized care plan is associated with shorter hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Res 193(1):237–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee GC, Fong ZV, Ferrone CR et al (2014) High performing whipple patients: factors associated with short length of stay after open pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1760–1769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carey K (2002) Hospital length of stay and cost: a multilevel modeling analysis. Health Serv Outcome Res Method 3(1):41–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosman M, Rachminov O, Segal O, Segal G (2015) Prolonged patients’ in-hospital waiting period after discharge eligibility is associated with increased risk of infection, morbidity and mortality: a retrospective cohort analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 15:246

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsai TC, Joynt KE, Wild RC et al (2015) Medicare’s bundled payment initiative: most hospitals are focused on a few high-volume conditions. Health Aff 34(3):371–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. American College of Surgeons (2018) ACS national surgical quality improvement program. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip. Accessed 19 Apr 2018

  17. Laurence JM, Tran PD, Moraji K et al (2011) A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and surgical outcomes following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 15(11):2059–2069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhan HX, Xu JW, Wu D et al (2017) Neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Cancer Med 6(6):1201–1219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Nimmo SM, Harrington LS (2014) What is the role of epidural analgesia in abdominal surgery? Br J Anaesth 14(5):224–229

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pöpping DM, Ella N, Van Akren HK et al (2014) Impact of epidural analgesia on mortality and morbidity after surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 259(6):1056–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sanford DE, Hawkins WG, Fields RC (2015) Improved peri-operative outcomes with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing a pancreatectomy: a nationwide analysis. HPB 17(6):551–558

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Waliye HE, Wright GP, McCarthy C et al (2017) Utility of feeding jejunostomy tubes in pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 213(3):530–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mehta VV, Fisher SB, Maithel SK et al (2013) Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg 216(4):635–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tremblay St-Germain A, Devitt KS, Kagedan DJ et al (2017) Impact of a clinical pathway on patient postoperative recovery following pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 19(9):799–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shao Z, Jin G, Ji W et al (2015) The role of fast-track surgery in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 635 consecutive resections. Int J Surg 15:129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lassen K, Coolsen MME, Slim K et al (2012) Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin Nutr 31(6):8117–8130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Porter ME, Kaplan RS (2016) How to pay for health care. Harv Bus Rev 94(7–8):88–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaplan RS, Porter ME (2011) How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev 89(9):46–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Enomoto LM, Gusani NJ, Dillon PW, Hollenbeak CS (2014) Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on mortality, length of stay, and cost of pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):690–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg 152(3):292–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Regenbogen SE, Cain-Nielsen AH, Norton EC et al (2017) Costs and consequences of early hospital discharge after major inpatient surgery in older adults. JAMA Surg 152(5):e170123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kagedan DJ, Devitt KS, Tremblay St-Germain A et al (2017) The economics of recovery after pancreatic surgery: detailed cost minimization analysis of an enhanced recovery program. HPB 19(11):1026–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Porter GA, Pisters PWT, Mansyur C et al (2000) Cost and utilization impact of a clinical pathway for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 7(7):484–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P et al (2010) Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg 145(7):634–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    David A. Mahvi, Linda M. Pak, Sourav K. Bose, Jason S. Gold & Edward E. Whang

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Richard D. Urman

  3. Department of Surgery, VA Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, MA, USA

    Jason S. Gold & Edward E. Whang

Authors
  1. David A. Mahvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda M. Pak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sourav K. Bose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard D. Urman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jason S. Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Edward E. Whang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Mahvi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahvi, D.A., Pak, L.M., Bose, S.K. et al. Fast-Track Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Factors Associated with Early Discharge. World J Surg 43, 1332–1341 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-04916-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-04916-0

Search

Navigation