0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

Management of Delayed Postoperative Hemorrhage After Pancreaticoduodenectomy:  A Meta-analysis FREE

Paolo Limongelli, MD; Shirin E. Khorsandi, MD; Madhava Pai, MRCS; James E. Jackson, MD, FRCR; Paul Tait, MD, FRCR; John Tierris, MD; Nagy A. Habib, MD, FRCS; Robin C. N. Williamson, MD, FRCS; Long R. Jiao, MD, FRCS
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Unit, Division of Surgery and Intensive Care (Drs Limongelli, Khorsandi, Pai, Tierris, Habib, Williamson, and Jiao), and Department of Radiology (Drs Jackson and Tait), Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College School of Medicine, London, England.


Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):1001-1007. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.10.1001.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To determine whether interventional radiology (IR) or laparotomy (LAP) is the best management of delayed postoperative hemorrhage (DPH) after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Data Source  We undertook an electronic search of MEDLINE and selected for analysis only original articles published between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2007.

Study Selection  Two of us independently selected studies reporting on clinical presentation and incidence of postoperative DPH and the following outcomes: complete hemostasis, morbidity, and mortality.

Data Extraction  Two of us independently performed data extraction. Data were entered and analyzed by means of dedicated software from The Cochrane Collaboration. A random-effects meta-analytical technique was used for analysis.

Data Synthesis  One hundred sixty-three cases of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified from the literature. The incidence of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy was 3.9%. Seventy-seven patients (47.2%) underwent LAP; 73 (44.8%), IR; and 13 (8%), conservative treatment. On meta-analysis comparing LAP vs IR for DPH, no significant difference was found between the 2 treatment options for complete hemostasis (73% vs 76%; P = .23), mortality (43% vs 20%; P = .14), or morbidity (77% vs 35%; P = .06).

Conclusions  This meta-analysis, although based on data from small case series, is unable to demonstrate any significant difference between LAP and IR in the management of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The management of this life-threatening complication is difficult, and the appropriate treatment pathway ultimately will be decided by the clinical status of the patient and the institution preference.

Figures in this Article

First performed by Walter Kausch,1 and subsequently as a 2-stage procedure by Whipple et al2 and Brunschwig,3 pancreaticoduodenectomy has become the standard surgical procedure for benign or malignant pancreatic and periampullary tumors.4 With improvements in preoperative staging methods, postoperative intensive care, and centralization of pancreatic services to high-volume hospitals, the results of pancreaticoduodenectomy have improved dramatically during the past decade with a significant reduction in operative mortality. However, a high postoperative morbidity remains.58

Hemorrhagic complications after pancreatic surgery are classified as early or delayed according to their timing.9,10 Early hemorrhage within the first 24 hours after surgery is caused by a technical failure and generally requires immediate laparotomy (LAP). On the other hand, delayed postoperative hemorrhage (DPH), although uncommon, poses a serious problem in the postoperative period and carries a high mortality.11 The most appropriate management of DPH remains unclear and controversial. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the published literature regarding DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy to identify the best management technique.

An electronic search of MEDLINE was undertaken using the key words delayed hemorrhage, delayed bleeding, delayed arterial hemorrhage, delayed arterial bleeding, transcatheter arterial embolization, covered stents, pancreatic resection, and pancreatoduodenectomy in various combinations. Only original articles published between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2007, were selected for analysis. The search terms were identified in the title, abstract, or medical subject heading (MeSH).

Two authors independently selected studies reporting on DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy. One of us (P.L.) extracted and summarized the details of the studies, including the type of surgery, number of patients with DPH, clinical presentation, primary treatment, and its outcome. These details were checked by a second, independent author (S.E.K.) to avoid data input errors.

The patient-relevant outcomes were complete hemostasis, morbidity, and mortality. For this meta-analysis, mortality included any death and morbidity included any complication occurring within 3 months after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The definition of DPH used in the literature is variable. Because of this, we reanalyzed the data to look at potential break points in the time to occurrence and the treatment modality. The fifth postoperative day or later was identified and used as the most appropriate break point for DPH based on the published data.

Quantitative data were entered into the computer by one of us (P.L.) and analyzed using commercially available statistical software (SPSS for Windows, version 12.0 [SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois] and Review Manager, version 4.2 [The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, England]).

Data entry and analysis were checked by a second author (S.E.K.). The meta-analysis was performed according to recommendations from The Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses guidelines.12,13 Results are expressed as median or range, unless otherwise indicated. For each outcome, a meta-analysis was performed, using an odds ratio as the summary statistic calculated by means of a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to combine the odds ratio for the outcomes of interest by means of a random-effects meta-analytical technique. In a random-effects model, it is assumed that there is variation between studies and the calculated odds ratio; thus, it produces a more conservative value.14

The odds ratios represent the odds of an adverse event occurring in the LAP group compared with the interventional radiology (IR) group. An odds ratio of less than 1 favored LAP, and the point estimate of the odds ratio was considered to be statistically significant at the level of P < .05, if the 95% confidence interval did not include the value 1. When a large number of comparisons are made on a small number of cases with inadequate statistical power, a large confidence interval is usually anticipated.

Our search identified a total of 163 cases of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Table 1).1539 The incidence of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy was 3.9%. The timing of this complication ranged from 5 to 206 (median, 26) days after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The clinical presentation included intra-abdominal hemorrhage (n = 101), hematemesis and/or melena (n = 46), and both (n = 16). Sentinel bleeding, defined as 1 or more episodes of minor bleeding preceding a major hemorrhage by 6 hours to 10 days,9,15 was described in 54 patients (33.1%). When documented, 107 patients with DPH (65.6%) had associated intra-abdominal abscess and/or anastomotic leak. In 53 cases of DPH (32.5%), an underlying pseudoaneurysm was responsible. Of the 163 patients reported to have DPH, 77 (47.2%) underwent LAP, 73 (44.8%) underwent IR, and 13 (8.0%) were treated conservatively (Table 2). Among the patients treated conservatively, one died of hypovolemic shock and another of further gastrointestinal tract bleeding associated with septicemia. The remaining 11 patients in that group had no further bleeding.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Incidence and Clinical Onset of Reported Cases of DPH After Pancreaticoduodenectomya
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Outcome After Primary Treatment of DPH After Pancreaticoduodenectomya
META-ANALYSIS OF LAP VS IR FOR COMPLETE HEMOSTASIS OF DPH AFTER PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY

Only 2 studies34,35 did not report on complete hemostasis after LAP or IR (Figure 1). The 22 patients from these 2 studies, along with 13 patients treated conservatively, were excluded from this analysis.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Forest plots of complete hemostasis for interventional radiology (IR) vs laparotomy (LAP) in delayed postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Squares indicate the point estimates of the treatment effect (odds ratio [OR]), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated by horizontal bars. The diamond represents the summary estimate from the pooled studies with 95% CIs.

Graphic Jump Location

Complete hemostasis was obtained in 46 of 63 patients (73%) undergoing LAP and in 56 of 73 (77%) undergoing IR (Figure 1). On statistical analysis, no significant difference was found between LAP and IR in achieving complete hemostasis of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy (P = .23). In the 35 patients with rebleeding after primary treatment, 25 underwent LAP and 10 underwent IR to achieve hemostasis.

META-ANALYSIS OF LAP VS IR FOR MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY

All 20 studies reported on morbidity and mortality after LAP or IR treatment of DPH. Thirteen patients underwent conservative treatment and were excluded. Fifty-four of 77 patients undergoing LAP (70%) and 26 of 73 undergoing IR (36%) had complications (Figure 2). Among the 93 posttreatment complications, there were 5 cases (5%) of hepatic failure after IR and 1 case (1%) after LAP. Four of these 6 patients who developed hepatic failure after primary treatment died during hospitalization. However, on meta-analysis, only a marginally significant difference was found for morbidity between LAP and IR in the treatment of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy (P = .05).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Forest plots of overall morbidity for interventional radiology (IR) vs laparotomy (LAP) in delayed postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Squares indicate the point estimates of the treatment effect (odds ratio [OR]), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated by horizontal bars. The diamond represents the summary estimate from the pooled studies with 95% CIs.

Graphic Jump Location

Fifty of 163 patients with DPH (30.7%) died after treatment. Reported causes of death after LAP were hemorrhagic shock, septic shock, disruption of the pancreaticojejunal anastomosis, erosion into the adjacent superior mesenteric artery, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and multiple organ failure. Septic shock, hemorrhagic shock, hepatic failure, and multiple organ failure were the reported causes of death after IR. Death occurred in 33 of the 77 patients undergoing LAP (43%) and only 15 of the 73 undergoing IR (20%) (Figure 3). Statistical analysis did not demonstrate any significant difference in mortality between LAP and IR in the treatment of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy (P = .13).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Forest plots of overall mortality for interventional radiology (IR) vs laparotomy (LAP) in delayed postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Squares indicate the point estimates of the treatment effect (odds ratio [OR]), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated by horizontal bars. The diamond represents the summary estimate from the pooled studies with 95% CIs.

Graphic Jump Location

Although DPH after pancreatic resection is a well-recognized complication, it is relatively uncommon.1539 As a result, its management remains unclear. From the literature we identified 163 cases of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Table 1). The incidence of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy was found to be 3.9%, with a third of patients with this complication dying of it. The pathogenesis of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy appears to be multifactorial. In pancreaticoduodenectomy, regional lymphadenectomy and extensive vascular skeletonization are often performed, making vessels vulnerable to erosion due to local sepsis secondary to abscess, pancreatic fistula, or anastomotic leakage.17,18,26,27 From our review, we found that almost two-thirds (65.6%) of the cases of DPH were associated with intra-abdominal abscess or anastomotic leak, and pseudoaneurysms were found to be involved in DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy in approximately one-third of cases (53 of 163 [32.5%]).

In 33.1% of reported cases, sentinel bleeding occurred, which is where 1 or more episodes of minor bleeding preceded a major DPH. A major DPH was defined as a significant drop in hemoglobin level or as hemodynamic instability necessitating blood transfusion.9,15 This definition emphasizes that any episode of hemorrhage, regardless of its severity, should be investigated aggressively in this group of patients.

From the literature, when reported, we found that less than one-third of patients (28.2%) presented with gastrointestinal tract bleeding, and approximately two-thirds (61.3%) presented with intra-abdominal bleeding. Gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage is often due to bleeding from a marginal ulcer at the anastomosis, the suture line, or a ruptured pseudoaneurysm secondary to an anastomotic leak. On the other hand, intra-abdominal hemorrhage is usually detected by noticing blood in an abdominal drain and is often associated with a leak from the pancreatic anastomosis.4,20 Endoscopy, which is usually used as a first diagnostic tool when upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding is suspected, may fail to pinpoint the site of hemorrhage, and positive findings such as erosive gastritis on endoscopy can be dangerously misleading and result in a delayed intervention or, in the worst cases, death.4,15,18,21

Historically, LAP has probably been the first choice of treatment for DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy.15,40 Laparotomy allows hemostasis (by ligation or underrunning of the vessels or pseudoaneurysms) to be combined with treatment of the factors contributing to DPH, such as anastomotic disruption or intra-abdominal collections. In cases of pancreatic leak or disrupted anastomosis, better mortality outcomes have been reported for lesser procedures, such as taking down and oversewing the pancreatic stump or occluding the pancreatic duct, when compared with aggressive completion pancreatectomy.16,23,41,42 However, during the past decade, a number of publications have reported encouraging results after management of DPH by IR.17,2124,26,27,37

From the published cases in the literature, LAP was performed in 47.2% of cases with DPH, and 44.8% underwent IR. The meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference between IR and LAP in successfully arresting hemorrhage (P = .23). No significant difference in posttreatment complications was found when DPH had been managed by LAP vs IR (P = .06), despite 70% of patients experiencing a complication in the LAP group compared with 36% in the IR group. A significant difference in death events between the 2 treatment options also was not found, despite 43% of patients dying when treated with LAP compared with 21% dying when treated with IR. The finding of higher morbidity and mortality in the patients treated with LAP is not unexpected considering the invasiveness of this strategy in patients already weakened by their initial surgical resection and debilitated further by the development of sepsis or anastomotic breakdown that then predisposed them to developing DPH.

Selective visceral angiography of the celiac and superior mesenteric arteries has been shown to be the single most valuable examination to elucidate the bleeding site.4147 However, angiography has limitations when the bleeding is venous, diffuse, or intermittent.45 Transcatheter arterial embolization has been shown to be a safe and effective first-line treatment for ruptured pseudoaneurysm.4850 Drawbacks of this procedure can be the accidental or intentional occlusion of the hepatic artery, which can lead to cholangitis, hepatic abscess, or fatal hepatic failure. From the published data, we found 5 cases (5%) of hepatic failure after IR and 1 case (1%) after LAP in the treatment of DPH (Table 2). However, the recent use of covered stents in the management of DPH may prove to be a useful solution for arresting hemorrhage while preserving hepatic artery perfusion and may further establish the role of IR in the management of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy.51

To our knowledge, no prospective randomized clinical trial comparing LAP with IR in the management of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy has been conducted to date, largely owing to the limited number of patients presenting with this postoperative complication. Therefore, there is currently no evidence to suggest that one strategy is superior to the other.7 This meta-analysis, although based on small case series of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy, has not been able to demonstrate that IR is significantly more advantageous than LAP. Based on the result of the present study, the management of this life-threatening complication ultimately will be dictated by the clinical status of the patient and the institution preference, with IR as the potential first-line less aggressive invasive investigation and treatment for hemodynamically stable patients and a more aggressive surgical approach as an imminent and/or definitive option when others have failed.

Correspondence: Long R. Jiao, MD, FRCS, HPB Unit, Division of Surgery and Intensive Care, Imperial College School of Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, England (l.jiao@imperial.ac.uk).

Accepted for Publication: May 14, 2007.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Habib, Williamson, and Jiao. Acquisition of data: Pai, Jackson, Tait, and Tierris. Analysis and interpretation of data: Limongelli and Khorsandi. Drafting of the manuscript: Limongelli, Khorsandi, Pai, Tierris, and Jiao. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Jackson, Tait, Habib, and Williamson. Statistical analysis: Limongelli. Administrative, technical, and material support: Jackson. Study supervision: Jiao.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Kausch  W Das Carcinom der Papilla duodeni und seine radikale Entfernung. Beitr Klin Chir 1912;78439- 486
Whipple  AOParsons  WBMullins  CR Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Ann Surg 1935;102 (4) 763- 779
PubMed Link to Article
Brunschwig  A Resection of the head of the pancreas and duodenum for carcinoma-pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1937;65681- 684
Yeo  CJ Management of complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Clin North Am 1995;75 (5) 913- 924
PubMed
Cameron  JLPitt  HAYeo  CJLillemoe  KDKaufman  HSColeman  J One hundred and forty-five consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies without mortality. Ann Surg 1993;217 (5) 430- 438
PubMed Link to Article
Yeo  CJCameron  JLSohn  TA  et al.  Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 1997;226 (3) 248- 260
PubMed Link to Article
Schäfer  MMullhaupt  BClavien  P Evidence-based pancreatic head resection for pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 2002;236 (2) 137- 148
PubMed Link to Article
DeOliveira  MLWinter  JMSchafer  M  et al.  Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2006;244 (6) 931- 939
PubMed Link to Article
Shankar  SRussell  RCG Hemorrhage in pancreatic disease. Br J Surg 1989;76 (8) 863- 866
PubMed Link to Article
de Castro  SMKuhlmann  KFBusch  OR  et al.  Delayed massive hemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery: embolization or surgery? Ann Surg 2005;241 (1) 85- 91
PubMed
Jordan  GL  Jr Pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer. Surg Clin North Am 1989;69 (3) 569- 597
PubMed
Moher  DCook  DJEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  DF Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUO ROM statement: Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354 (9193) 1896- 1900
PubMed Link to Article
Stroup  DFBerlin  JAMorton  SC  et al. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283 (15) 2008- 2012
PubMed Link to Article
Egger  MDavey Smith  GSchneider  MMinder  C Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315 (7109) 629- 634
PubMed Link to Article
Brodsky  JTTurnbull  ADM Arterial hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the “sentinel bleeding.” Arch Surg 1991;126 (8) 1037- 1040
PubMed Link to Article
Wu  CCHwang  CRYeh  DCHwang  YCLiu  TJP’eng  FK Treatment of the dehiscence of the pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: is resection of the residual pancreas necessary? Hepatogastroenterology 1996;43 (7) 271- 274
PubMed
Reber  PUBaer  HUPatel  AGTriller  JBuchler  MW Life-threatening upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding caused by ruptured extrahepatic pseudoaneurysm after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 1998;124 (1) 114- 115
PubMed Link to Article
Sato  NYamaguchi  KShimizu  S  et al.  Coil embolization of bleeding visceral pseudoaneurysm following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 1998;133 (10) 1099- 1102
PubMed
Yoshida  TMatsumoto  TMorii  Y  et al.  Delayed massive intraperitoneal hemorrhage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Int Surg 1998;83 (2) 131- 135
PubMed
Aranha  GVO’Neil  SBorge  MA Successful nonoperative management of bleeding hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 1999;16 (6) 528- 530
PubMed Link to Article
Okuno  AMiyazaki  MIto  H  et al.  Nonsurgical management of ruptured pseudoaneurysm in patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic diseases. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96 (4) 1067- 1071
PubMed Link to Article
Sugimoto  HKaneko  TIshiguchi  T  et al.  Delayed rupture of a pseudoaneurysm following pancreatoduodenectomy: report of a case. Surg Today 2001;31 (10) 932- 935
PubMed Link to Article
Otah  ECushin  BJRozenblit  GNNeff  ROtah  KCooperman  A Visceral artery pseudoaneurysm following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 2002;137 (1) 55- 59
PubMed Link to Article
Mansueto  GD’Onofrio  MIacono  CRozzanigo  USerio  GProcacci  C Gastroduodenal artery stump hemorrhage following pylorus-sparing Whipple procedure: treatment with covered stents. Dig Surg 2002;19 (3) 237- 240
PubMed Link to Article
Santoro  RCarlini  MCarboni  FNicolas  CSantoro  E Delayed massive arterial hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: management of a life-threatening complication. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50 (54) 2199- 2204
PubMed
Teramoto  KKawamura  TTakamatsu  SNoguchi  NArii  S A case of hepatic arterial embolization and partial arterialization of the portal vein for intraperitoneal hemorrhage after a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50 (53) 1217- 1219
PubMed
Yoon  YSKim  SWHer  KH  et al.  Management of postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50 (54) 2208- 2212
PubMed
Balachandran  PSikora  SSRaghavendra Rao  RVKumar  ASaxena  RKapoor  VK Haemorrhagic complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy. ANZ J Surg 2004;74 (11) 945- 950
PubMed Link to Article
Choi  SHMoon  HJHeo  JSJoh  JWKim  YI Delayed hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199 (2) 186- 191
PubMed Link to Article
Kim  JKim  JKYoon  W  et al.  Transarterial embolization for postoperative hemorrhage after abdominal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9 (3) 393- 399
PubMed Link to Article
Makowiec  FRiediger  HEuringer  WUhl  MHopt  UTAdam  U Management of delayed visceral arterial bleeding after pancreatic head resection. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9 (9) 1293- 1299
PubMed Link to Article
Tien  YWLee  PHYang  CYHo  MCChiu  YF Risk factors of massive bleeding related to pancreatic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201 (4) 554- 559
PubMed Link to Article
Koukoutsis  IBellagamba  RMorris-Stiff  G  et al.  Hemorrhage following pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the importance of sentinel bleed. Dig Surg 2006;23 (4) 224- 228
PubMed Link to Article
Boggi  UDel Chiaro  MCroce  C  et al.  Vascular complications of pancreatectomy. JOP 2007;8 (1) ((suppl)) 102- 113
PubMed
Cullen  JJSarr  MGIlstrup  DM Pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, significance, and management. Am J Surg 1994;168 (4) 295- 298
PubMed Link to Article
Furukawa  HKosuge  TShimada  KYamamoto  JKyosuke  U Helical CT of the abdomen after pancreaticoduodenectomy: usefulness for detecting postoperative complications. Hepatogastroenterology 1997;44 (15) 849- 855
PubMed
Rumstadt  BSchwab  MKorth  PSamman  MTrede  M Hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 1998;227 (2) 236- 241
PubMed Link to Article
Sohn  TAYeo  CJCameron  JL  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy: role of interventional radiologist in managing patients and complications. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7 (2) 209- 219
PubMed Link to Article
Turrini  OMoutardier  VGuiramand  J  et al.  Hemorrhage after duodenopancreatectomy: impact of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and experience with sentinel bleeding. World J Surg 2005;29 (2) 212- 216
PubMed Link to Article
van Berge Henegouwen  MIAllema  JHvan Gulik  MVerbeek  PCMObertop  HGouma  DJ Delayed massive hemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery. Br J Surg 1995;82 (11) 1527- 1531
PubMed Link to Article
Burdy  GAttal  EFrileux  P  et al.  Analysis of the drainage fluid after cephalic duodenopancreatectomy: a reliable clinical criterion [in French]. Ann Chir 1999;53 (3) 191- 200
PubMed
Smith  CDSarr  MGvanHeerden  JA Completion pancreatectomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: clinical experience. World J Surg 1992;16 (3) 521- 524
PubMed Link to Article
Stanley  JCFrey  CFMiller  TALindenauer  SMChild  CG  III Major arterial hemorrhage: a complication of pancreatic pseudocyst and chronic pancreatitis. Arch Surg 1976;111 (4) 435- 440
PubMed Link to Article
Gadacz  TRTrunkey  DKieffer  RF  Jr Visceral vessel erosion associated with pancreatitis. Arch Surg 1978;113 (12) 1438- 1440
PubMed Link to Article
Cahow  CEGusberg  RJGottlieb  LJ Gastrointestinal hemorrhage from pseudoaneurysm in pancreatic pseudocyst. Am J Surg 1983;145 (4) 534- 541
PubMed Link to Article
Harper  PCGemelli  RLKaye  MD Recurrent hemorrhage into the pancreatic duct from a splenic artery aneurysm. Gastroenterology 1984;87 (2) 417- 420
PubMed
Mandel  SRJaques  PFSanofsky  SMauro  MA Nonoperative management of peripancreatic arterial aneurysms: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg 1987;205 (2) 126- 128
PubMed Link to Article
Flati  GAndren-Sandberg  ALa Pinta  MPorowska  BCarboni  M Potentially fatal bleeding in acute pancreatitis: pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment. Pancreas 2003;26 (1) 8- 14
PubMed Link to Article
Rivitz  SMWaltman  ACKalsey  PB Embolization of a hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1996;19 (1) 43- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Reber  PUBaer  HUPatel  AGWildi  STriller  JBuchler  MW Superselective microcoil embolization: treatment of choice in high-risk patients with extrahepatic pseudoaneurysm of the hepatic arteries. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186 (3) 325- 330
PubMed Link to Article
Zealley  IATait  ISPolignano  FM Delayed massive hemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery: embolization or surgery? Ann Surg 2006;243 (1) 138- 139
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Forest plots of complete hemostasis for interventional radiology (IR) vs laparotomy (LAP) in delayed postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Squares indicate the point estimates of the treatment effect (odds ratio [OR]), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated by horizontal bars. The diamond represents the summary estimate from the pooled studies with 95% CIs.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Forest plots of overall morbidity for interventional radiology (IR) vs laparotomy (LAP) in delayed postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Squares indicate the point estimates of the treatment effect (odds ratio [OR]), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated by horizontal bars. The diamond represents the summary estimate from the pooled studies with 95% CIs.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Forest plots of overall mortality for interventional radiology (IR) vs laparotomy (LAP) in delayed postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Squares indicate the point estimates of the treatment effect (odds ratio [OR]), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated by horizontal bars. The diamond represents the summary estimate from the pooled studies with 95% CIs.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Incidence and Clinical Onset of Reported Cases of DPH After Pancreaticoduodenectomya
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Outcome After Primary Treatment of DPH After Pancreaticoduodenectomya

References

Kausch  W Das Carcinom der Papilla duodeni und seine radikale Entfernung. Beitr Klin Chir 1912;78439- 486
Whipple  AOParsons  WBMullins  CR Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Ann Surg 1935;102 (4) 763- 779
PubMed Link to Article
Brunschwig  A Resection of the head of the pancreas and duodenum for carcinoma-pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1937;65681- 684
Yeo  CJ Management of complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Clin North Am 1995;75 (5) 913- 924
PubMed
Cameron  JLPitt  HAYeo  CJLillemoe  KDKaufman  HSColeman  J One hundred and forty-five consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies without mortality. Ann Surg 1993;217 (5) 430- 438
PubMed Link to Article
Yeo  CJCameron  JLSohn  TA  et al.  Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 1997;226 (3) 248- 260
PubMed Link to Article
Schäfer  MMullhaupt  BClavien  P Evidence-based pancreatic head resection for pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 2002;236 (2) 137- 148
PubMed Link to Article
DeOliveira  MLWinter  JMSchafer  M  et al.  Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2006;244 (6) 931- 939
PubMed Link to Article
Shankar  SRussell  RCG Hemorrhage in pancreatic disease. Br J Surg 1989;76 (8) 863- 866
PubMed Link to Article
de Castro  SMKuhlmann  KFBusch  OR  et al.  Delayed massive hemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery: embolization or surgery? Ann Surg 2005;241 (1) 85- 91
PubMed
Jordan  GL  Jr Pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer. Surg Clin North Am 1989;69 (3) 569- 597
PubMed
Moher  DCook  DJEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  DF Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUO ROM statement: Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354 (9193) 1896- 1900
PubMed Link to Article
Stroup  DFBerlin  JAMorton  SC  et al. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283 (15) 2008- 2012
PubMed Link to Article
Egger  MDavey Smith  GSchneider  MMinder  C Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315 (7109) 629- 634
PubMed Link to Article
Brodsky  JTTurnbull  ADM Arterial hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy: the “sentinel bleeding.” Arch Surg 1991;126 (8) 1037- 1040
PubMed Link to Article
Wu  CCHwang  CRYeh  DCHwang  YCLiu  TJP’eng  FK Treatment of the dehiscence of the pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: is resection of the residual pancreas necessary? Hepatogastroenterology 1996;43 (7) 271- 274
PubMed
Reber  PUBaer  HUPatel  AGTriller  JBuchler  MW Life-threatening upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding caused by ruptured extrahepatic pseudoaneurysm after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 1998;124 (1) 114- 115
PubMed Link to Article
Sato  NYamaguchi  KShimizu  S  et al.  Coil embolization of bleeding visceral pseudoaneurysm following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 1998;133 (10) 1099- 1102
PubMed
Yoshida  TMatsumoto  TMorii  Y  et al.  Delayed massive intraperitoneal hemorrhage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Int Surg 1998;83 (2) 131- 135
PubMed
Aranha  GVO’Neil  SBorge  MA Successful nonoperative management of bleeding hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg 1999;16 (6) 528- 530
PubMed Link to Article
Okuno  AMiyazaki  MIto  H  et al.  Nonsurgical management of ruptured pseudoaneurysm in patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic diseases. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96 (4) 1067- 1071
PubMed Link to Article
Sugimoto  HKaneko  TIshiguchi  T  et al.  Delayed rupture of a pseudoaneurysm following pancreatoduodenectomy: report of a case. Surg Today 2001;31 (10) 932- 935
PubMed Link to Article
Otah  ECushin  BJRozenblit  GNNeff  ROtah  KCooperman  A Visceral artery pseudoaneurysm following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch Surg 2002;137 (1) 55- 59
PubMed Link to Article
Mansueto  GD’Onofrio  MIacono  CRozzanigo  USerio  GProcacci  C Gastroduodenal artery stump hemorrhage following pylorus-sparing Whipple procedure: treatment with covered stents. Dig Surg 2002;19 (3) 237- 240
PubMed Link to Article
Santoro  RCarlini  MCarboni  FNicolas  CSantoro  E Delayed massive arterial hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: management of a life-threatening complication. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50 (54) 2199- 2204
PubMed
Teramoto  KKawamura  TTakamatsu  SNoguchi  NArii  S A case of hepatic arterial embolization and partial arterialization of the portal vein for intraperitoneal hemorrhage after a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50 (53) 1217- 1219
PubMed
Yoon  YSKim  SWHer  KH  et al.  Management of postoperative hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50 (54) 2208- 2212
PubMed
Balachandran  PSikora  SSRaghavendra Rao  RVKumar  ASaxena  RKapoor  VK Haemorrhagic complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy. ANZ J Surg 2004;74 (11) 945- 950
PubMed Link to Article
Choi  SHMoon  HJHeo  JSJoh  JWKim  YI Delayed hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199 (2) 186- 191
PubMed Link to Article
Kim  JKim  JKYoon  W  et al.  Transarterial embolization for postoperative hemorrhage after abdominal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9 (3) 393- 399
PubMed Link to Article
Makowiec  FRiediger  HEuringer  WUhl  MHopt  UTAdam  U Management of delayed visceral arterial bleeding after pancreatic head resection. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9 (9) 1293- 1299
PubMed Link to Article
Tien  YWLee  PHYang  CYHo  MCChiu  YF Risk factors of massive bleeding related to pancreatic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201 (4) 554- 559
PubMed Link to Article
Koukoutsis  IBellagamba  RMorris-Stiff  G  et al.  Hemorrhage following pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the importance of sentinel bleed. Dig Surg 2006;23 (4) 224- 228
PubMed Link to Article
Boggi  UDel Chiaro  MCroce  C  et al.  Vascular complications of pancreatectomy. JOP 2007;8 (1) ((suppl)) 102- 113
PubMed
Cullen  JJSarr  MGIlstrup  DM Pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy: incidence, significance, and management. Am J Surg 1994;168 (4) 295- 298
PubMed Link to Article
Furukawa  HKosuge  TShimada  KYamamoto  JKyosuke  U Helical CT of the abdomen after pancreaticoduodenectomy: usefulness for detecting postoperative complications. Hepatogastroenterology 1997;44 (15) 849- 855
PubMed
Rumstadt  BSchwab  MKorth  PSamman  MTrede  M Hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 1998;227 (2) 236- 241
PubMed Link to Article
Sohn  TAYeo  CJCameron  JL  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy: role of interventional radiologist in managing patients and complications. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7 (2) 209- 219
PubMed Link to Article
Turrini  OMoutardier  VGuiramand  J  et al.  Hemorrhage after duodenopancreatectomy: impact of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and experience with sentinel bleeding. World J Surg 2005;29 (2) 212- 216
PubMed Link to Article
van Berge Henegouwen  MIAllema  JHvan Gulik  MVerbeek  PCMObertop  HGouma  DJ Delayed massive hemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery. Br J Surg 1995;82 (11) 1527- 1531
PubMed Link to Article
Burdy  GAttal  EFrileux  P  et al.  Analysis of the drainage fluid after cephalic duodenopancreatectomy: a reliable clinical criterion [in French]. Ann Chir 1999;53 (3) 191- 200
PubMed
Smith  CDSarr  MGvanHeerden  JA Completion pancreatectomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: clinical experience. World J Surg 1992;16 (3) 521- 524
PubMed Link to Article
Stanley  JCFrey  CFMiller  TALindenauer  SMChild  CG  III Major arterial hemorrhage: a complication of pancreatic pseudocyst and chronic pancreatitis. Arch Surg 1976;111 (4) 435- 440
PubMed Link to Article
Gadacz  TRTrunkey  DKieffer  RF  Jr Visceral vessel erosion associated with pancreatitis. Arch Surg 1978;113 (12) 1438- 1440
PubMed Link to Article
Cahow  CEGusberg  RJGottlieb  LJ Gastrointestinal hemorrhage from pseudoaneurysm in pancreatic pseudocyst. Am J Surg 1983;145 (4) 534- 541
PubMed Link to Article
Harper  PCGemelli  RLKaye  MD Recurrent hemorrhage into the pancreatic duct from a splenic artery aneurysm. Gastroenterology 1984;87 (2) 417- 420
PubMed
Mandel  SRJaques  PFSanofsky  SMauro  MA Nonoperative management of peripancreatic arterial aneurysms: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg 1987;205 (2) 126- 128
PubMed Link to Article
Flati  GAndren-Sandberg  ALa Pinta  MPorowska  BCarboni  M Potentially fatal bleeding in acute pancreatitis: pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment. Pancreas 2003;26 (1) 8- 14
PubMed Link to Article
Rivitz  SMWaltman  ACKalsey  PB Embolization of a hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1996;19 (1) 43- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Reber  PUBaer  HUPatel  AGWildi  STriller  JBuchler  MW Superselective microcoil embolization: treatment of choice in high-risk patients with extrahepatic pseudoaneurysm of the hepatic arteries. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186 (3) 325- 330
PubMed Link to Article
Zealley  IATait  ISPolignano  FM Delayed massive hemorrhage after pancreatic and biliary surgery: embolization or surgery? Ann Surg 2006;243 (1) 138- 139
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 23

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles