Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical appraisal of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) consensus definition of postoperative hemorrhage after pancreatoduodenectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) is one of the most serious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). This study analyzed and validated the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition of PPH and aimed to identify risk factors for early (<24 h) and late PPH.

Methods

Patients who underwent PD for pancreatic head tumors between 2001 and 2008 were included and complications were prospectively recorded. Factors associated with PPH were assessed by uni- and multivariate analysis.

Results

Complete datasets were available for 796 patients. Classic and pylorus-preserving PD was performed in 13.8% and 86.2% of the patients, respectively. According to the ISGPS definition, PPH occurred in 29.1% of the cases (232 of 796 patients): 4.8% grade A, 15.2% grade B, and 9.2% grade C. The definition is based largely on surrogate markers (e.g., transfusion requirement) that are affected by other critical illnesses and more than 97% of patients with mild PPH had no clinical signs of bleeding. The need for postoperative intensive care as well as the incidence of pancreatic fistula, relaparotomy, and mortality rates significantly increased from grades A to C. Thirty-seven patients (4.6%) required interventional (endoscopy or angiography) and/or relaparotomy for PPH. Relaparotomy for PPH was performed in 3.1% of all patients.

Independent risk factors for early PPH were preoperative anemia (hemoglobin, <11 mg/dl) and multivisceral resection while advanced age, chronic renal insufficiency, increased blood loss, and long operation time were associated with late PPH.

Conclusions

The ISGPS definition of PPH is feasible and applicable but produces a high rate of false positive mild PPH cases. The different grades still significantly correlate with relevant outcome variables, thus the definition discriminates postoperative courses, but a minor modification of the definition of mild PPH is suggested. The new results further demonstrate the need to optimize preoperative anemia and chronic renal insufficiency.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grobmyer SR, Pieracci FM, Allen PJ, Brennan MF, Jaques DP (2007) Defining morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy: use of a prospective complication grading system. J Am Coll Surg 204:356–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hartwig W, Hackert T, Hinz U, Hassenpflug M, Strobel O, Buchler MW, Werner J (2009) Multivisceral resection for pancreatic malignancies: risk-analysis and long-term outcome. Ann Surg 250:81–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Simons JP, Shah SA, Ng SC, Whalen GF, Tseng JF (2009) National complication rates after pancreatectomy: beyond mere mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 13:1798–1805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Winter JM, Cameron JL, Campbell KA, Arnold MA, Chang DC, Coleman J, Hodgin MB, Sauter PK, Hruban RH, Riall TS, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Lillemoe KD, Yeo CJ (2006) 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 10:1199–1210, discussion 1210–1191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Balcom JHt, Rattner DW, Warshaw AL, Chang Y, Fernandez-del Castillo C (2001) Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch Surg 136:391–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Berge Henegouwen MI, Allema JH, van Gulik TM, Verbeek PC, Obertop H, Gouma DJ (1995) Delayed massive haemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery. Br J Surg 82:1527–1531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yekebas EF, Wolfram L, Cataldegirmen G, Habermann CR, Bogoevski D, Koenig AM, Kaifi J, Schurr PG, Bubenheim M, Nolte-Ernsting C, Adam G, Izbicki JR (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage: diagnosis and treatment: an analysis in 1669 consecutive pancreatic resections. Ann Surg 246:269–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. di Sebastiano P, Festa L, De Bonis A, Ciuffreda A, Valvano MR, Andriulli A, di Mola FF (2011) A modified fast-track program for pancreatic surgery: a prospective single-center experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:345–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wente MN, Veit JA, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Yeo CJ, Buchler MW (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beyer L, Bonmardion R, Marciano S, Hartung O, Ramis O, Chabert L, Leone M, Emungania O, Orsoni P, Barthet M, Berdah SV, Brunet C, Moutardier V (2009) Results of non-operative therapy for delayed hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 13:922–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Limongelli P, Khorsandi SE, Pai M, Jackson JE, Tait P, Tierris J, Habib NA, Williamson RC, Jiao LR (2008) Management of delayed postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 143:1001–1007, discussion 1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tien YW, Lee PH, Yang CY, Ho MC, Chiu YF (2005) Risk factors of massive bleeding related to pancreatic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 201:554–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wente MN, Shrikhande SV, Kleeff J, Muller MW, Gutt CN, Buchler MW, Friess H (2006) Management of early hemorrhage from pancreatic anastomoses after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 23:203–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weitz J, Kienle P, Schmidt J, Friess H, Buchler MW (2007) Portal vein resection for advanced pancreatic head cancer. J Am Coll Surg 204:712–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hackert T, Werner J, Weitz J, Schmidt J, Buchler MW (2010) Uncinate process first–a novel approach for pancreatic head resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395:1161–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rajarathinam G, Kannan DG, Vimalraj V, Amudhan A, Rajendran S, Jyotibasu D, Balachandar TG, Jeswanth S, Ravichandran P, Surendran R (2008) Post pancreaticoduodenectomy haemorrhage: outcome prediction based on new ISGPS Clinical severity grading. HPB (Oxford) 10:363–370

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Di Giorgio A, Alfieri S, Rotondi F, Prete F, Di Miceli D, Ridolfini MP, Rosa F, Covino M, Doglietto GB (2005) Pancreatoduodenectomy for tumors of Vater’s ampulla: report on 94 consecutive patients. World J Surg 29:513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yao HS, Wang Q, Wang WJ, Hu ZQ (2008) Intraoperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in ampullary cancer outcome after curative pancreatoduodenectomy: a clinical study and meta-analysis. World J Surg 32:2038–2046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Welsch T, Degrate L, Zschabitz S, Hofer S, Werner J, Schmidt J (2011) The need for extended intensive care after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:353–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Clark E, Connor S, Taylor MA, Hendry CL, Madhavan KK, Garden OJ, Parks RW (2007) Perioperative transfusion for pancreaticoduodenectomy and its impact on prognosis in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 9:472–477

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Park SJ, Kim SW, Jang JY, Lee KU, Park YH (2002) Intraoperative transfusion: is it a real prognostic factor of periampullary cancer following pancreatoduodenectomy? World J Surg 26:487–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee MK, Dinorcia J, Reavey PL, Holden MM, Genkinger JM, Lee JA, Schrope BA, Chabot JA, Allendorf JD (2010) Pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed safely in patients aged 80 years and older. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1838–1846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ballarin R, Spaggiari M, Di Benedetto F, Montalti R, Masetti M, De Ruvo N, Romano A, Guerrini GP, De Blasiis MG, Gerunda GE (2009) Do not deny pancreatic resection to elderly patients. J Gastrointest Surg 13:341–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Khan S, Sclabas G, Lombardo KR, Sarr MG, Nagorney D, Kendrick ML, Donohue JH, Que FG, Farnell MB (2010) Pancreatoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma in the very elderly; is it safe and justified? J Gastrointest Surg 14:1826–1831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lerut JP, Gianello PR, Otte JB, Kestens PJ (1984) Pancreaticoduodenal resection. Surgical experience and evaluation of risk factors in 103 patients. Ann Surg 199:432–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Uchida H, Shibata K, Kai S, Iwaki K, Ohta M, Kitano S (2008) Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Surg Today 38:1152–1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Adam U, Makowiec F, Riediger H, Schareck WD, Benz S, Hopt UT (2004) Risk factors for complications after pancreatic head resection. Am J Surg 187:201–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Diener MK, Mehr KT, Wente MN, Kieser M, Buchler MW, Seiler CM (2010) Risk-benefit assessment of closed intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the current state of evidence. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:41–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ, Izbicki JR, Neoptolemos JP, Padbury RT, Sarr MG, Traverso LW, Yeo CJ, Buchler MW (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142:761–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mareike Borm and Luca Degrate for their excellent assistance with data collection.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Thilo Welsch, Hanna Eisele, Stefanie Zschäbitz, Ulf Hinz, Markus W. Büchler & Moritz N. Wente

  2. Department of Medical Scientific Affairs, Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany

    Moritz N. Wente

  3. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus W. Büchler

Authors
  1. Thilo Welsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hanna Eisele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefanie Zschäbitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulf Hinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus W. Büchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Moritz N. Wente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus W. Büchler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Welsch, T., Eisele, H., Zschäbitz, S. et al. Critical appraisal of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) consensus definition of postoperative hemorrhage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396, 783–791 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0811-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0811-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation