Skip to main content
Log in

Active Surveillance for Adverse Events Within 90 Days: The Standard for Reporting Surgical Outcomes After Pancreatectomy

  • Pancreatic Tumors
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The rate of adverse events after pancreatectomy is widely reported as a measure of surgical quality. However, morbidity data are routinely acquired retrospectively and often are reported at 30 days. The authors hypothesized that morbidity after pancreatectomy is therefore underreported. They sought to compare rates of adverse events calculated at multiple time points after pancreatectomy.

Methods

The authors instituted an active surveillance system to detect, categorize, and grade the severity of all adverse events after pancreatectomy, using the modified Accordion system and International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definitions. All patients and clinical events were monitored directly for at least 90 days after surgery.

Results

Of 315 consecutively monitored patients, 239 (76 %) experienced 500 unique adverse events. The absolute number of unique adverse events increased by 32 % between index discharge and 90 days and by 10 % between 30 and 90 days. The number of severe adverse events increased by 96 % between discharge and 90 days and by 29 % between 30 and 90 days. In this study, 16 % of the patients experienced at least one severe adverse event within the index hospitalization, 24 % within 30 postoperative days, and 29 % within 90 days. Among the 80 readmissions that occurred within 90 days, 28 (35 %) occurred later than 30 days after pancreatectomy.

Conclusions

Approximately one-third of severe adverse events and readmissions are reported more than 30 days after surgery. All adverse events that occur within 90 days of surgery must be identified and reported for accurate characterization of the morbidity associated with pancreatectomy.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Correa-Gallego C, Brennan MF, D’Angelica M, et al. Operative drainage following pancreatic resection: analysis of 1122 patients resected over 5 years at a single institution. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1051–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grobmyer SR, Pieracci FM, Allen PJ, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Defining morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy: use of a prospective complication grading system. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:356–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mehta VV, Fisher SB, Maithel SK, Sarmiento JM, Staley CA, Kooby DA. Is it time to abandon routine operative drain use? A single-institution assessment of 709 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:635–642; discussion 642–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mise Y, Vauthey JN, Zimmitti G, et al. 90-Day postoperative mortality is a legitimate measure of hepatopancreatobiliary quality. Ann Surg. 2014; In Press.

  5. Brown SR, Mathew R, Keding A, Marshall HC, Brown JM, Jayne DG. The impact of postoperative complications on long-term quality of life after curative colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2014;259:916–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Merkow RP, Bilimoria KY, Tomlinson JS, et al. Postoperative complications reduce adjuvant chemotherapy use in resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2013.

  7. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, et al. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg. 2005;242:326–41; discussion 341–323.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin RC II, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg. 2002;235:803–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992;111:518–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dindo D, Hahnloser D, Clavien PA. Quality assessment in surgery: riding a lame horse. Ann Surg. 2010;251:766–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Porembka MR, Hall BL, Hirbe M, Strasberg SM. 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;210:286–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG. The ACCORDION severity grading system of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2009;250:177–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Enomoto LM, Hollenbeak CS, Bhayani NH, Dillon PW, Gusani NJ. Measuring surgical quality: a national clinical registry versus administrative claims data. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1416–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Swanson RS, Pezzi CM, Mallin K, Loomis AM, Winchester DP. The 90-day mortality after pancreatectomy for cancer is double the 30-day mortality: more than 20,000 resections from the national cancer data base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:4059–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Piccirillo JF, Tierney RM, Costas I, Grove L, Spitznagel EL Jr. Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospital-based cancer registry. JAMA. 26 2004;291:2441–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Katz MH, Pisters PW, Evans DB, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: the importance of this emerging stage of disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:833–46; discussion 846–838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz MH, Wang H, Balachandran A, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgical technique on recurrence of localized pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:68–78; discussion 78–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tseng JF, Raut CP, Lee JE, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection: margin status and survival duration. J Gastrointest. 2004;8:935–49; discussion 949–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Katz MH, Lee JE, Pisters PW, Skoracki R, Tamm E, Fleming JB. Retroperitoneal dissection in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: operative principles and techniques. J A Coll Surg. 2012;215:e11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, et al. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery. 2007;142:20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL, Ko CY. Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. Adv Surg. 2010;44:251–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Khuri SF. The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery. 2005;138:837–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, Krukowski ZH. The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gawlas I, Sethi M, Winner M, et al. Readmission after pancreatic resection is not an appropriate measure of quality. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1781–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kent TS, Sachs TE, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr. The burden of infection for elective pancreatic resections. Surgery. 2013;153:86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Figueras J, Sabater L, Planellas P, et al. Randomized clinical trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy on the rate and severity of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1597–605.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:655–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Van Buren G II, Bloomston M, Hughes SJ, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann Surg. 2014;259:605–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Baker MS, Sherman KL, Stocker SJ, et al. Using a modification of the Clavien-Dindo system accounting for readmissions and multiple interventions: defining quality for pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:400–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vollmer CM, Jr., Lewis RS, Hall BL, et al. Establishing a quantitative benchmark for morbidity in pancreatoduodenectomy using ACS-NSQIP, the ACCORDION Severity Grading System, and the Postoperative Morbidity Index. Ann Surg. 2014.

  34. Ansorge C, Nordin JZ, Lundell L, et al. Diagnostic value of abdominal drainage in individual risk assessment of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101:100–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The National Veterans Administration Surgical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:519–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.03, 2010. Retrieved 17 Jan 2015 at http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf.

  37. Epelboym I, Gawlas I, Lee JA, Schrope B, Chabot JA, Allendorf JD. Limitations of ACS-NSQIP in reporting complications for patients undergoing pancreatectomy: underscoring the need for a pancreas-specific module. World J Surg. 2014;38:1461–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Forster AJ, Worthington JR, Hawken S, et al. Using prospective clinical surveillance to identify adverse events in hospital. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:756–63.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Grocott MP, Browne JP, Van der Meulen J, et al. The Postoperative Morbidity Survey was validated and used to describe morbidity after major surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:919–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sanford DE, Woolsey CA, Hall BL, et al. Variations in definition and method of retrieval of complications influence outcomes statistics after pancreatoduodenectomy: comparison of NSQIP with non-NSQIP methods. J Am Coll Surg. 2014; 219(3):407–415.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE, et al. Toward robust information: data quality and interrater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:6–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kartha A, Restuccia JD, Burgess JF Jr, et al. Nurse practitioner and physician assistant scope of practice in 118 acute care hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2014;9:615–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Matthew H. G. Katz had access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. This study was supported by the Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation and by the Various Donor Pancreatic Research Fund at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew H. G. Katz MD.

Additional information

Lilian Schwarz and Morgan Bruno have equally contributed to this study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10434_2015_4437_MOESM1_ESM.tiff

Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 1521 kb). Association between the grade of the most severe AE (according to the modified ACCORDION severity grading system [ASGS]) and the number of unique AEs occurring in each patient (n = 239 patients with at least 1 AE)

10434_2015_4437_MOESM2_ESM.tiff

Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 1521 kb). Severity of pancreatic fistulas (according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula [ISGPF] grading system) reported for each patient between index discharge and 90 days after surgery (red indicates a severe pancreatic fistula (grade B or C)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwarz, L., Bruno, M., Parker, N.H. et al. Active Surveillance for Adverse Events Within 90 Days: The Standard for Reporting Surgical Outcomes After Pancreatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 22, 3522–3529 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4437-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4437-z

Keywords

Navigation