Next Article in Journal
Changes in Cerebral Blood Flow after Erenumab Treatment in Good and Non-Responders—A Pilot Study of Migraine Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Topical Anesthetics in Pain Management for Dermal Injuries: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/jcm10112521
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chronic Liver Disease Increases Mortality Following Pancreatoduodenectomy

by
Jana Enderes
,
Jessica Teschke
,
Steffen Manekeller
,
Tim O. Vilz
,
Jörg C. Kalff
and
Tim R. Glowka
*
Department of Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(11), 2521; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112521
Submission received: 14 May 2021 / Revised: 29 May 2021 / Accepted: 2 June 2021 / Published: 7 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Gastroenterology & Hepatopancreatobiliary Medicine)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
According to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS), data about the impact of pre-existing liver pathologies on delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) according to the definitions of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) are lacking. We therefore investigated the impact of DGE after PD according to ISGPS in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) and advanced liver fibrosis (LF). Patients were analyzed with respect to pre-existing liver pathologies (LC and advanced LF, n = 15, 6% vs. no liver pathologies, n = 240, 94%) in relation to demographic factors, comorbidities, intraoperative characteristics, mortality and postoperative complications, with special emphasis on DGE. DGE was equally distributed (DGE grade A, p = 1.000; B, p = 0.396; C, p = 0.607). Particularly, the first day of solid food intake (p = 0.901), the duration of intraoperative administered nasogastric tube (NGT) (p = 0.812), the rate of re-insertion of NGT (p = 0.072), and the need for parenteral nutrition (p = 0.643) did not differ. However, patients with LC and advanced LF showed a higher ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score (p = 0.016), intraoperatively received more erythrocyte transfusions (p = 0.029), stayed longer in the intensive care unit (p = 0.010) and showed more intraabdominal abscess formation (p = 0.006). Moreover, we did observe a higher mortality rate amongst patients with pre-existing liver diseases (p = 0.021), and reoperation was a risk factor for higher mortality (p ≤ 0.001) in the multivariate analysis. In our study, we could not detect a difference with respect to DGE classified by ISGPS; however, we did observe a higher mortality rate amongst these patients and thus, they should be critically evaluated for PD.

1. Introduction

Liver cirrhosis (LC) is the result of chronic liver injury by various stimuli such as chronic hepatitis B and C virus infections, alcohol-related liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) [1,2,3,4,5]. Chronic liver injury leads to structural changes involving the activation of hepatic stellate cells and the production of the extracellular matrix, which accumulates and leads to fibrotic scarring, and subsequently to LC if left untreated [6]. End-stage LC and its complications—such as variceal bleeding, ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or hepatic encephalopathy—can be life-threatening [7]. The prevalence of LC has evolved in recent years due to an increasing number of people showing the above-mentioned risk factors that can lead to LC [8]. This automatically results in an increased number of unrecognized (and only intraoperatively diagnosed) advanced LF and LC in patients requiring PD [9]. Patients with LC show high mortality and morbidity after surgery [10]. The increased risk for high mortality is due to increased bacterial infections and compromised wound healing, poor nutritional status, increased intra- and postoperative bleeding, and hydropic decompensation due to ascites, peripheral edema and postoperative renal failure [11,12,13]. The postoperative outcome also depends on the specific procedure, with mortality rates ranging from 0.6 to 1.3% for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and from 14 to 29% for colorectal surgery [14]. As for PD, postoperative mortality ranges from 0 to 55% depending on the Child–Pugh status [15,16,17,18,19].
The data regarding gastric motility and gastroparesis in patients with LC are inconclusive. The majority of studies report impaired gastric motility in patients with LC per se [20,21,22,23]. There are two studies showing no difference in gastric emptying time [24,25]. However, since both of these studies only used liquid test meals, these data should be interpreted cautiously. Due to the evolving number of cirrhotic patients undergoing PD, the question arises whether these patients are put at an additional risk in respect to DGE after PD. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of common specific complications after PD according to the ISGPS definitions, with special emphasis on DGE in patients with LC and advanced LF after PD.

2. Materials and Methods

We retrospectively studied all patients that underwent PD at our department between January 2012 and December 2020 (n = 275). Patients who had previously had gastric resection (n = 2) and patients with prolonged postoperative resumption to normal diet—independently of DGE (long-term ventilation >7 days, fasting due to PF) (n = 18)—were excluded. The remaining total of 255 patients were included in our study. All pancreatic resections were prospectively recorded in a pancreatic resection database with the approval of the institutional ethics committee (ethics committee of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms University Bonn, 347/13) and after obtaining written informed consent from the participants. Patients were analyzed with respect to pre-existing liver pathologies (LC and advanced LF, n = 15, 6% vs. no liver pathologies, n = 240, 94%) in relation to demographic factors, comorbidities, intraoperative characteristics, hospital stay, morbidity and mortality, and postoperative complications, with special emphasis on DGE. Morbidity and mortality were documented according to the Clavien–Dindo classification [26]. PF, PPH and DGE were classified according to the definitions of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery [27,28,29]. LC and advanced LF were diagnosed by ultrasound elastography, high-resolution imaging (CT scan or MRI; typical signs include surface nodularity, enlargement of liver segment 1 and signs of portal hypertension) and/or intraoperatively by macroscopy and/or histology.
Perioperative management was carried out according to our institution’s standard operating procedure protocol. In cases of a potential high-malignant tumor, patients were discussed by our multidisciplinary Tumor Board. If considered for surgery, bowel preparations were not administered and patients were allowed to eat solid food up to 6 h before surgery, and to drink liquids up to 2 h before surgery. In case of malnutrition, sip feeds were administered at least one week prior to surgery.
PD was performed by 4 certified senior pancreatic surgeons (JCK, SM, TRG, NS). Resection was carried out in a standardized fashion and for reconstruction, a single loop technique with ante- or retrocolic reconstruction was used. In the case of retrocolic reconstruction, supra- or infracolic routes were used [30]. Duodenoenterostomy, pancreatogastrostomy and end-to-end choledochojejunostomy were carried out as previously described [31,32]. A classic Whipple procedure with double-loop reconstruction was only carried out if the antrum was directly infiltrated. Perioperatively, a mid-thoracic peridural catheter and a 14 French nasogastric tube (NGT) were placed by default. In the case of contraindications for a peridural catheter, opioids were given via a patient-controlled analgesia. Before closure of the abdomen, two soft drains were placed at the sites of pancreatogastrostomy and choledochojejunostomy.
Postoperatively, patients stayed at the intensive care unit for at least one day and were allowed to directly drink water. Patients then transitioned to a normal diet followed by easily digestible/fat-reduced meals on POD3, easily digestible/fiber-reduced meals on POD4, a basic diet (no pulses/no brassica) on POD5, and a normal diet on POD6. NGT was removed if daily secretions were less than 500 mL, and soft drains were subsequently removed if amylase levels in the drainage fluid were normal on POD3. In the case of pancreatic fistula, octreotide (100 μg 3×/d s.c.) was administered for 5 days. If patients had not shown bowel movement by POD2, an oral laxative (magnesium sulfate) was administered. In the case of vomiting, transition to a normal diet was discontinued and an NGT was re-inserted. All patients received an antibiotic prophylaxis with an aminopenicillin plus β-lactamase inhibitor and a weight-adapted thrombosis prophylaxis.
Data were recorded and analyzed with Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, DC, USA) and SPSS 24 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, NY, USA). Statistical analyses were carried out as described in one of our previous studies [32]: continuously and normally distributed variables were expressed as medians ± standard deviation and analyzed using the Student’s t test, while non-normally distributed data were expressed as medians and interquartile range, and analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical data were expressed as proportions and compared with either the Pearson x2 test or the Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Factors with p < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were included in multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis, with a significance level of p < 0.05 for inclusion and p < 0.10 for removal in each step. The relative risk was described by the estimated odds ratio, with 95% confidence intervals. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

Of the 255 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 15 showed pre-existing liver cirrhosis (LC) or advanced liver fibrosis (LF) (LC, n = 5; LF, n = 10). Of the former, three were classified as CHILD A and two were classified as CHILD B. CHILD A cirrhosis was caused by alcohol abuse (n = 1), chronic hepatitis C (n = 1) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NASH) (n = 1), whereas CHILD B cirrhosis was caused by primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) (n = 1) and NASH (n = 1). Advanced fibrosis was caused by polycystic liver disease (n = 3), alcohol abuse (n = 2), chronic hepatitis B and C (n = 1), chronic hepatitis C on its own (n = 1), hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (n = 1), NASH (n = 1) and drug-related inducement (n = 1).
Patients with LC and advanced LF were comparable to patients without pre-existing liver pathologies in regard to demographics and preoperative data (Table 1); however, patients with LC and advanced LF showed a higher frequency of alcohol abuse (53% vs. 26%, p = 0.036), and significantly more comorbidities measured by a higher Charlson Morbidity Index (CCI) (CCI 4 (3–5) vs. CCI 2 (2,3), p ≤ 0.001) were observed among them (Table 1). Moreover, they were classified as being at higher perioperative risk, as represented by a higher ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score (ASA 3 (2,3) vs. ASA 2 (2,3), p = 0.016).
Intraoperative data such as surgery duration and technical aspects did not differ between the two groups (Table 1). However, we did observe more erythrocyte concentrates being transfused in patients with LC and advanced LF (2 (0–3) vs. 0 (0–1), p = 0.029), even though blood loss did not differ among the groups (1000 (500–1100) mL vs. 600 (350–1000) mL, p = 0.098). Postoperatively, patients with pre-existing liver pathologies stayed longer in the intensive care unit (3 (2–6) vs. 2 (1–3) days, p = 0.010), though interestingly this did not affect the overall duration of the hospital stay (Table 1).
As for postoperative complications, we did observe significantly more intraabdominal abscess formation in patients with advanced liver fibrosis and liver cirrhosis (40% vs. 11%, p = 0.006). In addition, they showed a higher mortality rate (20% vs. 3%, p = 0.021) than patients with no pre-existing liver pathologies. Both groups were comparable according to the Clavien–Dindo classification (Clavien major 60% vs. 51%, p = 0.372), and complications according to ISGPS such as PPH, PF and DGE did not differ between the two groups (Table 2).
In particular, specific parameters according to ISGPS, such as the first day of solid food intake, the duration of intraoperative administered nasogastric tube (NGT), the rate of reinsertion of an NGT, and the need for parenteral nutrition, also did not differ between the two groups (Table 3).
In the univariate analysis, the following factors qualified for multivariate analysis: preoperative diabetes mellitus, LC or advanced LF, reoperation, insufficiency of BDA, and suprafascial wound infection (Table 4). Note that DGE according to ISGPS was not statistically significant in the univariate analyses. Reoperation was a risk factor for high mortality in the multivariate analysis (p ≤ 0.001).

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating common postoperative complications after PD in patients with LC and advanced LF according to the ISGPS definitions, with special emphasis on DGE, including DGE grading and specific parameters associated with DGE. There are several studies investigating postoperative complications and outcomes after PD in cirrhotic patients [16,17,33,34,35]. However, these studies show some limitations. First, and by far most importantly, almost all of the studies [16,17,33,34,35] include patient data before the year 2007—the year in which the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery developed a uniform definition of DGE, with DGE being further classified into three different grades (grade A, B and C) according to the clinical impact [29]. Thus, data were either only retrospectively classified according to ISGPS, or not at all, and sub-classification into grade A, B and C did not take place. One recent study by Cheng et al. investigated the outcome of minimally invasive PD; in their propensity matched analysis, no difference in DGE was found in patients with and without higher-grade liver pathologies [35]. The ISGPS definition of DGE and the sub-classification into these grades involves either the postoperative duration of an NGT or the need for the reinsertion of an NGT [29]. In our study, we could not detect a difference in respect to DGE classified by ISGPS, either in the general definition or according to the NGT-related parameters, such as the duration of intraoperative administered NGT or the rate of reinsertion of an NGT.
Reasons for impaired gastric motility in patients with LC may be autonomic dysfunction [22], higher postprandial glucose and insulin levels, and a lower secretion of ghrelin [23], a hormone that stimulates gastric emptying and is primarily produced in the stomach, but also to a lesser extent in other organs such as in pancreatic islet cells [36]. Hormone imbalance is also observed after PD, with decreased insulin secretion leading to hyperglycemia and increased GLP-1 secretion [37], both of which are known to delay gastric emptying [38]. Potential explanations for why we did not observe an even more severe DGE in patients with LC and advanced LF after PD have to remain speculative at this point, and might include imbalance of hormone regulation with decreased GLP-1 secretion in cirrhotic patients [39] as a counteraction to the increased GLP-1 secretion after PD per se. Furthermore, patients with LC and advanced LF might simply be well adapted to prolonged gastrointestinal transit, and thus, do not show more DGE after PD than patients without liver pathologies [40]. To clarify why we did not detect a difference between the two groups and to uncover a possible underlying mechanism, further studies are needed.
Patients with LC and advanced LF in our cohort showed a higher quantity of comorbidities measured by the CCI, and therefore were being put at higher perioperative risk, as represented by a higher ASA score. As a result, patients with LC and advanced LF to begin with were in worse condition than patients with healthy livers. Not surprisingly, postoperatively, they showed a higher mortality rate, which is in line with previous studies [16,17,18]. In order to minimize postoperative mortality in patients with LC and advanced LF as much as possible, patients should thus receive optimal supportive treatment to improve their medical status, such as parenteral nutrition, drainage of ascites, substitution of albumin, and prophylaxis of pneumonia by breathing exercises.
A correlation between erythrocyte concentrates that are transfused during surgery and mortality is well known [41,42], and according to current guidelines restrictive transfusion strategies are also recommended in patients with LC [43]. In our cohort, in patients with LC and advanced LF, more erythrocyte concentrates were transfused during surgery, despite the amount of blood loss not differing statistically between the two groups. One would assume a higher amount of blood loss in patients with LC and advanced LF; however, at our center, a standardized perioperative management—which involves preoperative consultation of our coagulation division and, if necessary, administration of vitamin K or fresh frozen plasma, intraoperative careful dissection, use of ligature, titan clips and ligature devices—might be a possible explanation for this. Eventually, patients with higher-grade liver pathologies are assumed to be of a higher bleeding risk, and therefore the threshold to transfuse is set lower by the attending surgeons and anesthesiologists.
Postoperatively, patients stayed at the intensive care unit (ICU) for at least one day; however, patients with LC and advanced LF spent significantly more days at the ICU. This is not surprising since they showed more comorbidities and a higher ASA score, are thereby considered to show higher morbidity and mortality after surgery per se, and simply might directly need prolonged postoperative intensive care [44]. Importantly, this did not affect the overall length of the hospital stay. Furthermore, patients with LC are known to show impaired immune function [45], which might also account for a longer stay at the intensive care unit. This impaired immune function might also explain the observation that patients with LC and advanced LF showed more intraabdominal abscess formation after surgery, even though rates of insufficiency of pancreatogastrostomy, biliodigestive anastomosis and duodenoenterostomy did not differ between the two groups. Moreover, there was no difference in intraoperatively taken microbiological samples of the gall fluid; however, patients with LC are known to show increased gut permeability and bacterial translocation [46], which not only accounts for the development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, but also might increase the risk of abscess formation after PD. Postoperative complications such as abscess formation—which was treated by either CT-guided percutaneous drainage or endoscopic ultrasound-guided transgastric drainage—did not lead to an increased need for a second surgery. This is in line with other studies that also did not report more reoperations after PD in cirrhotic patients compared to non-cirrhotic controls [16,17,18,19,34]. However, in our study, if reoperation occurred this was a risk factor for a higher mortality rate. Thus, patients with LC and advanced LF should be critically evaluated for PD. If in need of elective PD, risk factors known to influence surgical outcome in general for patients with compromised liver function should be carefully optimized (e.g., parenteral nutrition, drainage of ascites, substitution of albumin, prophylaxis of pneumonia by breathing exercises), and postoperative close surveillance to avoid reoperation should be mandatory.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we investigated the impact of common specific complications after PD in patients with pre-existing liver cirrhosis and advanced liver fibrosis. We showed that patients with pre-existing LC and advanced LF demonstrate higher morbidity and mortality, and thus, these patients should be critically evaluated for PD.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E. and T.R.G.; performance of the operations, T.R.G., S.M. and J.C.K.; data curation, J.E. and T.R.G.; methodology, J.E. and T.R.G.; formal analysis, J.E. and T.R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.E.; writing—review and editing, J.E. and T.R.G.; validation, J.T., S.M., T.O.V. and J.C.K.; supervision, T.R.G.; project administration, T.R.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional ethics committee (Ethik-Kommission der Medizinischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 347/13).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Our anonymized pancreatic resection database contains sensitive data (e.g., date of surgery), with which certain patients could be identified. According to German law and according to the approval of the ethics committee, these data must not be published. Access to the database can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ASAAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists
BMIbody mass index
DEduodenoenterostomy
DGEdelayed gastric emptying
ISGPSInternational Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery
LCliver cirrhosis
LFliver fibrosis
NASHnon-alcoholic fatty liver disease
NGTnasogastric tube
PDpancreatoduodenectomy
PDACpancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
PFpancreatic fistula
PPHpost pancreatectomy hemorrhage
PODpostoperative day

References

  1. Liaw, Y.-F.; Chu, C.-M. Hepatitis B virus infection. Lancet 2009, 373, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Toshikuni, N.; Arisawa, T.; Tsutsumi, M. Hepatitis C-related liver cirrhosis—Strategies for the prevention of hepatic decompensation, hepatocarcinogenesis, and mortality. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 2876–2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Roerecke, M.; Vafaei, A.; Hasan, O.S.M.; Chrystoja, B.R.; Cruz, M.; Lee, R.; Neuman, M.G.; Rehm, J. Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 114, 1574–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, B.; Zhang, C.; Zhan, Y.-T. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Cirrhosis: A Review of Its Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, Management, and Prognosis. Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 2018, 2784537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sepanlou, S.G.; Safiri, S.; Bisignano, C.; Ikuta, K.S.; Merat, S.; Saberifiroozi, M.; Poustchi, H.; Tsoi, D.; Colombara, D.V.; Abdoli, A.; et al. The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5, 245–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Elpek, G.Ö. Cellular and molecular mechanisms in the pathogenesis of liver fibrosis: An update. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 7260–7276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schuppan, D.; Afdhal, N.H. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet 2008, 371, 838–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moon, A.M.; Singal, A.G.; Tapper, E.B. Contemporary Epidemiology of Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 2650–2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gdowski, A.; Osman, H.; Butt, U.; Foster, S.; Jeyarajah, D.R. Undiagnosed Liver Fibrosis in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. World J. Surg. 2017, 41, 2854–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Neeff, H.; Mariaskin, D.; Spangenberg, H.-C.; Hopt, U.T.; Makowiec, F. Perioperative mortality after non-hepatic general surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis: An analysis of 138 operations in the 2000s using Child and MELD scores. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2011, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nicoll, A. Surgical risk in patients with cirrhosis. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 27, 1569–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nadim, M.K.; Durand, F.; Kellum, J.A.; Levitsky, J.; O’Leary, J.G.; Karvellas, C.J.; Bajaj, J.S.; Davenport, A.; Jalan, R.; Angeli, P.; et al. Management of the critically ill patient with cirrhosis: A multidisciplinary perspective. J. Hepatol. 2016, 64, 717–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Klein, L.M.; Chang, J.; Gu, W.; Manekeller, S.; Jansen, C.; Lingohr, P.; Praktiknjo, M.; Kalff, J.C.; Schulz, M.; Spengler, U.; et al. The Development and Outcome of Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure After Surgical Interventions. Liver Transplant. 2019, 26, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hickman, L.; Tanner, L.; Christein, J.; Vickers, S. Non-Hepatic Abdominal Surgery in Patients with Cirrhotic Liver Disease. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019, 23, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fuks, D.; Sabbagh, C.; Yzet, T.; Delcenserie, R.; Chatelain, D.; Regimbeau, J.M. Cirrhosis should not be considered as an absolute contraindication for pancreatoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2012, 59, 881–883. [Google Scholar]
  16. El Nakeeb, A.; Sultan, A.M.; Salah, T.; El Hemaly, M.; Hamdy, E.; Salem, A.; Moneer, A.; Said, R.; AbuEleneen, A.; Zeid, M.A.; et al. Impact of cirrhosis on surgical outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 19, 7129–7137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Regimbeau, J.-M.; Rebibo, L.; Dokmak, S.; Boher, J.-M.; Sauvanet, A.; Chopin-Laly, X.; Adham, M.; Lesurtel, M.; Bigourdan, J.-M.; Truant, S.; et al. The short- and long-term outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer in Child A patients are acceptable: A patient-control study from the Surgical French Association report for pancreatic surgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 111, 776–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Busquets, J.; Peláez, N.; Gil, M.; Secanella, L.; Ramos, E.; Lladó, L.; Fabregat, J. ¿Es la duodenopancreatectomía cefálica una intervención segura en el paciente cirrótico? Cirugía Española 2016, 94, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Butler, J.R.; Kays, J.K.; House, M.G.; Ceppa, E.P.; Nakeeb, A.; Schmidt, C.M.; Zyromski, N.J. Outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy in the cirrhotic patient: Risk stratification and meta-analysis. HPB 2019, 21, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Isobe, H.; Sakai, H.; Satoh, M.; Sakamoto, S.; Nawata, H. Delayed gastric emptying in patients with liver cirrhosis. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1994, 39, 983–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ishizu, H.; Shiomi, S.; Kawamura, E.; Iwata, Y.; Nishiguchi, S.; Kawabe, J.; Ochi, H. Gastric emptying in patients with chronic liver diseases. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2002, 16, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Verne, G.N.; Soldevia-Pico, C.; Robinson, M.E.; Spicer, K.M.; Reuben, A. Autonomic dysfunction and gastroparesis in cirrhosis. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2004, 38, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kalaitzakis, E.; Sadik, R.; Holst, J.J.; Öhman, L.; Björnsson, E. Gut transit is associated with gastrointestinal symptoms and gut hormone profile in patients with cirrhosis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2009, 7, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. van Thiel, D.H.; Fagiuoli, S.; Wright, H.I.; Chien, M.C.; Gavaler, J.S. Gastrointestinal transit in cirrhotic patients: Effect of hepatic encephalopathy and its treatment. Hepatology 1994, 19, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Karlsen, S.; Fynne, L.; Grønbæk, H.; Krogh, K. Small intestinal transit in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension: A descriptive study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012, 12, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, P.-A. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bassi, C.; Marchegiani, G.; Dervenis, C.; Sarr, M.; Abu Hilal, M.; Adham, M.; Allen, P.; Andersson, R.; Asbun, H.J.; Besselink, M.G.; et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After. Surgery 2017, 161, 584–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Wente, M.N.; Veit, J.A.; Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Fingerhut, A.; Goum, D.J.; Izbicki, J.R.; Neoptolemos, J.P.; Padbury, R.T.; Sarr, M.G. Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 2007, 142, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wente, M.N.; Bassi, C.; Dervenis, C.; Fingerhut, A.; Gouma, D.J.; Izbicki, J.R.; Neoptolemos, J.P.; Padbury, R.T.; Sarr, M.G.; Traverso, L.W. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: A suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2007, 142, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Hafke, J.; van, B.C.; Manekeller, S.; Vilz, T.O.; Kalff, J.C.; Glowka, T.R. The Impact of Supra- and Infracolic Reconstruction on Delayed Gastric Emptying Following Pancreatoduodenectomy. Zent. Chir. 2020, 145, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  31. Standop, J.; Overhaus, M.; Schaefer, N.; Decker, D.; Wolff, M.; Hirner, A.; Tuerler, A. Pancreatogastrostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy: A safe, feasible reconstruction method? World J. Surg. 2005, 29, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Glowka, T.R.; Webler, M.; Matthaei, H.; Schäfer, N.; Schmitz, V.; Kalff, J.C.; Standop, J.; Manekeller, S. Delayed gastric emptying following pancreatoduodenectomy with alimentary reconstruction according to Roux-en-Y or Billroth-II. BMC Surg. 2017, 17, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Robinson, J.R.; Marincola, P.; Shelton, J.; Merchant, N.B.; Idrees, K.; Parikh, A.A. Peri-operative risk factors for delayed gastric emptying after a pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 2015, 17, 495–501. Available online: http://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S1365182X15312156 (accessed on 14 February 2021). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Futagawa, Y.; Kanehira, M.; Furukawa, K.; Kitamura, H.; Yoshida, S.; Usuba, T.; Misawa, T.; Okamoto, T.; Yanaga, K. Impact of delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy on survival. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2017, 24, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cheng, K.; Liu, W.; You, J.; Shah, S.; Cai, Y.; Wang, X.; Peng, B. Safety of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis using propensity score matching. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Levin, F.; Edholm, T.; Schmidt, P.T.; Grybäck, P.; Jacobsson, H.; Degerblad, M.; Höybye, C.; Holst, J.J.; Rehfeld, J.F.; Hellströmm, P.M.; et al. Ghrelin stimulates gastric emptying and hunger in normal-weight humans. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2006, 91, 3296–3302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Muscogiuri, G.; Mezza, T.; Prioletta, A.; Sorice, G.P.; Clemente, G.; Sarno, G.; Nuzzo, G.; Pontecorvi, A.; Holst, J.J.; Giaccari, A. Removal of duodenum elicits GLP-1 secretion. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 1641–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Deane, A.M.; Nguyen, N.Q.; Stevens, J.E.; Fraser, R.J.L.; Holloway, R.H.; Besanko, L.K.; Burgstad, C.; Jones, K.L.; Chapman, M.J.; Rayner, C.K.; et al. Endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 slows gastric emptying in healthy subjects, attenuating postprandial glycemia. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2010, 95, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bernsmeier, C.; Meyer-Gerspach, A.C.; Blaser, L.S.; Jeker, L.; Steinert, E.R.; Heim, M.H.; Beglinger, C. Glucose-induced glucagon-like Peptide 1 secretion is deficient in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Kalaitzakis, E. Gastrointestinal dysfunction in liver cirrhosis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 14686–14695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Glance, L.G.; Dick, A.W.; Mukamel, D.B.; Fleming, F.J.; Zollo, R.A.; Wissler, R.; Salloum, R.; Meredith, U.W.; Osler, T.M. Association between intraoperative blood transfusion and mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 2011, 114, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Bernard, A.C.; Davenport, D.L.; Chang, P.K.; Vaughan, T.B.; Zwischenberger, J.B. Intraoperative transfusion of 1 U to 2 U packed red blood cells is associated with increased 30-day mortality, surgical-site infection, pneumonia, and sepsis in general surgery patients. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2009, 208, 931–937.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, P.; Hum, J.; Jou, J.; Scanlan, R.M.; Shatzel, J. Transfusion strategies in patients with cirrhosis. Eur. J. Haematol. 2020, 104, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sobol, J.B.; Wunsch, H. Triage of high-risk surgical patients for intensive care. Crit. Care 2011, 15, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Bonnel, A.R.; Bunchorntavakul, C.; Reddy, K.R. Immune dysfunction and infections in patients with cirrhosis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011, 9, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Wiest, R.; Lawson, M.; Geuking, M. Pathological bacterial translocation in liver cirrhosis. J. Hepatol. 2014, 60, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Demographic and perioperative data.
Table 1. Demographic and perioperative data.
Advanced Fibrosis and CirrhosisNo Liver Pathologyp
n = 15n = 240
age (a)63 (57–77)68 (59–75)0.475
gender female5 (3%)106 (44%)0.412
BMI26.9 (23.7–28.1)24.8 (22.7–28.1)0.275
diagnosis malignant9 (60%)184 (77%)0.210
weight loss7 (47%)129 (54%)0.547
alcohol abuse8 (53%)62 (26%)0.036
nicotine (active consumption)6 (40%)66 (28%)0.378
preoperative biliary drainage4 (27%)114 (48%)0.116
preoperative diabetes mellitus5 (33%)70 (29%)0.773
Charlson Comorbidity Index4 (3–5)2 (2–3)≤0.001
ASA physical status classification3 (2–3)2 (2–3)0.016
duration of operation (min)377 (330–471)395 (315–467)0.847
transfusions (erythrocyte concentrate)2 (0–3)0 (0–1)0.029
blood loss (mL)1000 (500–1100)600 (300–1000)0.098
positive intraoperative microbiology5 (33%)118 (49%)0.071
venous resection4 (27%)45 (19%)0.499
multivisceral resection1 (7%)13 (5%)0.590
single loop reconstruction13 (87%)202 (84%)1.000
infracolic reconstruction3 (20%)77 (32%)0.381
retrocolic duodenoenterostomy12 (80%)199 (83%)1.000
pylorus-preserving procedure11 (73%)202 (84%)0.282
stay in hospital (d)25 (20–36)23 (17–30)0.392
stay in intensive care unit (d)3 (2–6)2 (1–3)0.010
stay in intensive care unit with respirator (d)0 (0–1)0 (0)0.216
Data are shown as frequency (%) or median (interquartile range), BMI = body mass index, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists.
Table
Table 2. Postoperative outcome/complications.
Table 2. Postoperative outcome/complications.
Advanced Fibrosis and CirrhosisNo Liver Pathologyp
n = 15n = 240
PPH grade B/C5 (33%)61 (25%)0.545
PF grade B/C3 (20%)45 (19%)0.733
insufficiency of BDA2 (13%)13 (5%)0.196
insufficiency of DE0 (0%)8 (3%)1.000
wound infection (suprafascial)3 (20%)45 (19%)1.000
intraabdominal abscess formation6 (40%)26 (11%)0.006
reoperation2 (13%)30 (13%)0.693
Clavien major (grade III–IV)9 (60%)115 (48%)0.372
mortality3 (20%)8 (3%)0.021
delayed gastric emptying6 (40%)121 (50%)0.932
 grade A3 (20%)67 (28%)1.000
 grade B3 (20%)34 (14%)0.396
 grade C0 (0%)21 (9%)0.607
Data are shown as frequency (%), PPH = postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, PF = pancreatic fistula, BDA = biliodigestive anastomosis, DE = duodenoenterostomy.
Table
Table 3. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) parameters according to ISGPS.
Table 3. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) parameters according to ISGPS.
Advanced Fibrosis and CirrhosisNo Liver Pathologyp
n = 15n = 240
first day of solid food intake10 (7–14)9 (7–15)0.901
intraoperative gastric tube (d)4 (3–8)4 (3–7)0.812
reinsertion of gastric tube 1 (7%)65 (27%)0.072
parenteral nutrition (d)3 (0–9)3 (0–7)0.643
Data are shown as frequency (%) or median (interquartile range).
Table
Table 4. Risk factors associated with high mortality.
Table 4. Risk factors associated with high mortality.
Odds Ratio95%-CIp
univariate
 preoperative diabetes mellitus3.0430.899–10.2990.087
 advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis7.2501.704–30.8530.021
 reoperation36.5007.327–181.833≤0.001
 insufficiency of BDA8.2861.902–36.0980.016
 wound infection (suprafascial)3.8761.131–13.2830.037
 DGE grade B/C2.0670.478–8.9260.390
multivariate
 reoperation26.8994.067–177.915≤0.001
CI = confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Enderes, J.; Teschke, J.; Manekeller, S.; Vilz, T.O.; Kalff, J.C.; Glowka, T.R. Chronic Liver Disease Increases Mortality Following Pancreatoduodenectomy. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2521. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112521

AMA Style

Enderes J, Teschke J, Manekeller S, Vilz TO, Kalff JC, Glowka TR. Chronic Liver Disease Increases Mortality Following Pancreatoduodenectomy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(11):2521. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112521

Chicago/Turabian Style

Enderes, Jana, Jessica Teschke, Steffen Manekeller, Tim O. Vilz, Jörg C. Kalff, and Tim R. Glowka. 2021. "Chronic Liver Disease Increases Mortality Following Pancreatoduodenectomy" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 11: 2521. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112521

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop