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 ......
Original Article |

Establishing Standards of Quality for Elderly Patients Undergoing Pancreatic Resection FREE

Wande B. Pratt, MD, MPH; Anupama Gangavati, MD; Kathryn Agarwal, MD; Robert Schreiber, MD; Lewis A. Lipsitz, MD; Mark P. Callery, MD; Charles M. Vollmer Jr, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery (Drs Pratt, Callery, and Vollmer), and Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine (Drs Gangavati, Agarwal, and Lipsitz), Harvard Medical School, and Hebrew SeniorLife, Institute for Aging Research (Drs Schreiber and Lipsitz), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.


Arch Surg. 2009;144(10):950-956. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2009.107.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To evaluate pancreatic surgery as a model for high-acuity surgery in elderly patients for immediate and long-term outcomes, predictors of adverse outcomes, and hospital costs.

Design  Retrospective case series.

Setting  University tertiary care referral center.

Patients  Four hundred twelve consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic resection from October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2008, for benign and malignant periampullary conditions.

Main Outcome Measures  Clinical outcomes were compared for elderly (≥75 years) and nonelderly patient cohorts. Quality assessment analyses were performed to show the differential impact of complications and resource utilization between the groups.

Results  The elderly cohort constituted one-fifth of all patients. Benchmark standards of quality were achieved in this group, including low operative mortality (1%). Despite higher patient acuity, clinical outcomes were comparable to those of nonelderly patients at a marginal cost increase (median, $2202 per case). Cost modeling analysis showed further that minor and moderate complications were more frequent but no more debilitating for elderly patients. Major complications, however, were far more threatening to older patients. In these cases, duration of hospital stay doubled, and invasive interventions were more commonly deployed.

Conclusions  Quality standards for pancreatic resection in the elderly can—and should—mirror those for younger patients. Age-related care, including geriatric consultation, supplemental enteral nutrition, and early rehabilitation placement planning, can be designed to mitigate the impact of complications in the elderly and guarantee quality.

The elderly constitute the fastest-growing age demographic in the United States. The US Census Bureau estimates that 12% of the population is currently 65 years or older. By 2030, this demographic will double in absolute number and represent 20% of the US population.1 Longer life expectancy, coupled with advancements in surgical techniques, has resulted in more elderly patients presenting for surgery.2 Surgeons and other physicians will wrestle with reasonable indications for surgery and its effect on patient morbidity, quality of life, resource utilization, and expenditures for this cohort.

These dilemmas are common when patients present with periampullary malignant neoplasms. Pancreatic cancer is among the deadliest cancers, with annual mortality approximating its incidence. Beyond mortality, the burden of this aggressive cancer is overwhelming—often presenting late in its natural course and lacking any effective screening test.36 Surgical resection remains the only potential curative treatment but is an option for only 10% to 25% of patients.7 Although some randomized trials have shown a marginal survival benefit when adjuvant therapy is used,8 chemoradiotherapy requires prompt and complete surgical recovery. This option is precluded in some patients, perhaps more so in the elderly, owing to delayed recovery from postoperative complications, low physiologic reserve, or early mortality.9

Standards for surgical care are receiving increasing scrutiny, particularly in high-acuity procedures such as pancreatic resection, in which patients are typically older, baseline patient risk is high, and complications are frequent, costly, and debilitating. New process and systems improvement initiatives rely on established quality indicators, the assessment of practice outcomes, and standardized perioperative management approaches.1018 However, it remains unclear whether contemporary standards of quality for pancreatic resection are equivalent for young and elderly patients and to what extent such approaches can optimize outcomes for elderly patients. This analysis addresses these uncertainties and provides recommendations for achieving optimal outcomes when pancreatic resection is performed in older patients.

PATIENTS, OPERATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT

Two fellowship-trained pancreatobiliary surgical specialists (M.P.C. and C.M.V.) performed 412 consecutive pancreatic resections from October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2008, including 272 proximal, 124 distal, 9 central, and 7 total pancreatectomies, for a full spectrum of benign and malignant periampullary pathological findings. For pancreatoduodenectomy, the most common indication was pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (109 patients [40%]), whereas distal pancreatectomy was performed most often for cystic neoplasms (54 [44%]). Central pancreatectomy was selectively applied to lesions of the body and neck for its ability to preserve pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function. Total pancreatectomy was reserved for lesions not amenable to limited pancreatic resection, most often for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms.

The Carepath for Pancreatic Resection, a standardized clinical pathway for perioperative care, was used at our institution. This pathway, previously described in detail elsewhere, outlines a reproducible multidisciplinary approach to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management.17,18 Geriatric consultation and specific age-related care were typically provided for patients older than 75 years. This includes evaluation of comorbid conditions, particularly cardiac and respiratory illness. Gerontologists also identify family support structures and discuss end-of-life and resuscitation preferences. Nutritional evaluation and cognitive and functional analyses are regularly performed. In the postoperative period, geriatric consultation is useful for fluid management, pain control, and prevention and treatment of postoperative delirium. These specific interventions were formally incorporated into our care pathway in 2006 but were frequently used in earlier years.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were prospectively collected in accordance with guidelines for human subjects research, as approved by our institutional review board. Recorded variables have been described and defined elsewhere,1719 including analysis of preoperative status with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification of Physical Status20 and the Karnofsky scale.21 Patients were classified as elderly (aged ≥75 years) or nonelderly. Many gerontologists and pancreatic surgeons now regard patients older than 75 years as elderly, particularly because the average age for patients undergoing pancreatic resection is 63 years.14

TRADITIONAL QUALITY ASSESSMENTS

Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between cohorts. In addition to accepted baseline indicators of quality—complications, duration of hospital stay, and perioperative mortality—we explored other emerging measures of surgical quality, which have been defined previously.17 The incidence and severity of complications were defined according to the Clavien scheme, which describes 5 grades of clinical severity, based on escalating levels of therapeutic interventions required.22 Briefly, grades 1 and 2 events represent complications of minor severity, and grade 3A reflects a moderate complication. Grades 3B and 4 represent major complications, and grade 5 represents death.

CONTEMPORARY QUALITY ASSESSMENTS

Beyond these traditional assessments, 2 other analyses—ratio of observed to expected (O:E) morbidity and deviation-based cost modeling (DBCM)—were performed to measure the incremental impact of increasing age on outcomes and to determine whether elderly status significantly alters the anticipated postoperative clinical course. The rationale and details of these analyses have been published previously.1719,23 Using the actual incidence of postoperative complications and the mean Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM),19,23 we evaluated surgical quality through variance in O:E morbidity. A ratio equal to 1.00 demonstrates expected performance. Ratios of greater than 1.00 suggest that the outcomes are worse than expected. Conversely, ratios of less than 1.00 suggest that the outcomes achieved are better than expected. Deviations from our standard care pathway were evaluated using DBCM to compare the clinical and economic impact of complications.18 For any given operation or procedure, DBCM links the severity of complications with the length of stay. Hospital costs for each deviation class were compared using a summary measure of cost efficiency that combines the relative proportion of each deviation category (on course to major) with its median hospital cost.18 This provides the weighted average median cost per patient, reflecting the direct contribution of complications to costs.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Categorical variables were compared using the χ2, Fisher exact, and univariate logistic regression statistics; continuous variables were compared using analysis of variance, unpaired t tests for independent variables, and simple linear regression. Differences between O:E morbidity were assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 goodness-of-fit method.24 Factors associated with morbidity were calculated by cross-tabulation using χ2 and Pearson correlation tests. We considered P < .05 to be statistically significant. Computations were performed using commercially available software (SPSS 14.0 [SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Illinois] and Stata 8.2 [StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas]).

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS

From October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2008, pancreatic resection was performed in 76 elderly patients (18%) and 336 nonelderly patients (82%). Elderly patients had significantly lower preoperative albumin levels and median body mass indexes (Table 1). Several measures of patient acuity were significantly worse among the elderly patients. Elderly patients were twice as likely to present with American Society of Anesthesiologists classifications of III or IV (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-3.68; P = .004), and the median POSSUM physiologic severity score was significantly higher (25 vs 17; P < .001). Karnofsky scores of 80 or 70 were more frequent, but resections were not performed for patients with scores of less than 70. Comorbidity rates, except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, were equivalent. Elderly patients harbored malignant neoplasms significantly more often (64 of 76 patients [84%] vs 168 of 336 [50%]; P < .001), with pancreatic adenocarcinoma being the most common indication for nonelderly (96 patients [29%]) and elderly (35 [46%]) patients. Nonelderly patients more often presented with pancreatitis or other benign conditions (12 patients [16%] vs 168 [50%]).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Preoperative Patient Characteristics for Nonelderly and Elderly Patientsa
OPERATIVE FACTORS

Operative outcomes were statistically equivalent between the age groups (Table 2). Blood loss (median, 350 mL) and operative time were benchmarks for both cohorts, whereas the number of individuals receiving blood transfusions was significantly greater among elderly patients. Surgical performance (POSSUM operative severity score) was equal, indicating that, despite higher patient acuity among elderly patients, equivalent operative conduct can be achieved.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Operative Outcomes for Nonelderly and Elderly Patients After Pancreatic Resectiona
TRADITIONAL QUALITY ANALYSIS
Elderly Patients

Among the 76 elderly patients, 55 (72%) developed at least 1 complication of any severity, but two-thirds of these (39 of 55) were minor in scope. Oliguria/hypotension (37 patients [49%]), delirium (22 [29%] vs 30 nonelderly patients [9%]; P < .001), wound infections (16 patients [21%]), and respiratory distress (12 [16%]) were common. The median hospital duration was 9 days. Although most returned home (19 [25%]) or required visiting nursing assistance (22 [29%]), 34 patients (45%) required further treatment at rehabilitation facilities. Hospital readmission and reoperation were infrequent (11 patients [14%] and 8 [11%], respectively); only 1 elderly patient (1.3%) died (of myocardial infarction). The median total hospital cost for these patients was $19 852 (range, $9873-$164 756).

Elderly vs Nonelderly Patients

Clinical outcomes were compared directly between elderly and nonelderly patients (Table 3). Overall, postoperative complications were significantly greater among elderly patients, although this is explained by differences in rates of minor complications (39 elderly patients [51%] vs 112 nonelderly patients [33%]; P = .003). Moderate and major complications (grades 3-5) were equivalent (16 elderly patients [21%] vs 49 nonelderly patients [15%]; P = .11). As a result, more antibiotic therapy, blood transfusions, and parenteral nutrition were required by the elderly. Moreover, elderly patients showed a trend toward increasing rates of image-guided drainage and required reoperation 3 times more often (odds ratio, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.25-8.07; P = .01). These factors contributed to a 1-day increase in median hospital stay and higher rates of rehabilitation placement.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Postoperative Outcomes for Nonelderly and Elderly Patients After Pancreatic Resectiona

Detailed economic analysis demonstrates that pancreatic resection was somewhat more costly among elderly patients, translating to $2202 (or roughly 12% more) per patient (Table 4). This cost increase largely reflects increased laboratory evaluations, pharmacologic interventions, duration of intensive care unit stay, and the additive costs of an additional day of hospitalization.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Economic Outcomes for Nonelderly and Elderly Patients Undergoing Pancreatic Resection
Risk Factors for Postoperative Morbidity

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the overall cohort confirmed advanced age (P = .03) and intraoperative blood loss (P = .004) as predictive factors associated with postoperative morbidity. Advanced age was associated with a 2-fold increase in the likelihood of morbidity (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.07-3.93; P = .03). This risk-adjusted analysis also suggests that elderly patients, on average, incur a 2-day increase in hospital stay (β = 2.35; 95% CI, 1.03-3.67; P < .001) and a $9800 increase in total hospital costs (β = $9774; 95% CI, $4117-$15 431; P < .001).

When elderly patients were scrutinized separately on univariate analysis, type of resection, lower preoperative hematocrit level, presence of a malignant neoplasm, and operative time were associated with any level of morbidity. However, these were not significant after multivariate analysis. Complications were broken into 2 strata, minor and moderate/major, to determine which factors predict complication severity. There were no identifiable risk factors for minor complications. However, intraoperative blood loss was the only significant factor (P = .03) for moderate/major complications.

CONTEMPORARY QUALITY ANALYSIS

For the complete time frame, the overall O:E morbidity ratio was 0.94, steadily improving from 1.24 in 2001 to 0.87 currently.17 The O:E ratios were calculated separately for the elderly and nonelderly patient cohorts. Although elderly patients demonstrated higher expected and observed morbidity rates (both P < .001), calculated O:E ratios were equivalent. This ratio declined more significantly during the 6-year time frame among younger patients (1.27 to 0.84), whereas elderly patients experienced more modest, but real, improvements (1.15 to 0.93).

When DBCM was applied, the incidence and severity of deviations was substantially greater among elderly patients (Table 5). Within the on-course category, elderly patients had longer hospital stays by 1 day (P = .03); however, costs were similar. These metrics were equivalent for minor deviations. Moderate deviations were only marginally more severe and costly. Major deviations, however, were far more consequential to older patients. Hospital duration nearly doubled, and staggering cost discrepancies resulted.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Deviation-Based Cost Modeling for Comparison of Nonelderly and Elderly Patients

Collectively, these differential outcomes are reflected in the weighted-average median hospital duration and cost, which depicts the full impact of complications. The overall impact of complications in elderly patients was a 2.2-day increase in duration of hospital stay and a $9577 cost increase per patient, quite consistent with our risk-adjusted model described in the “Traditional Quality Analysis” subsection.

The recent growth of the elderly population affords physicians and surgeons unprecedented opportunities to understand—and perhaps mitigate—the impact of age on surgical recovery.15 This is particularly relevant when high-acuity operations are performed for debilitating and malignant conditions. A good example is pancreatic resection, in which patients' baseline physiological condition is generally suboptimal, operations are formidable, and long-term survival is rare. Until recently, elderly patients with periampullary malignant neoplasms were often precluded from undergoing resection by surgeons for these reasons, and this likely still affects referral patterns. This rationale was largely based on historical data suggesting marginal improvement in survival, coupled with operative mortality rates as high as 20%.2527 However, with global improvements in care, current recommendations for management should not consider age alone to be a contraindication for resection.2831

Pancreatic resection, today, like other operations, can be performed safely and frequently in elderly patients.12,29,30 This study demonstrates that a substantial 18% of all resections in our specialty practice were for elderly patients; however, operative mortality (1%) exceeded benchmark standards for pancreatic resection at high-volume centers (3.8%).14,32 Furthermore, although the overall rate of complications was high, major morbidity was infrequent (21%). Intraoperative blood loss, rather than age, was the strongest predictor. High standards of surgical care were similarly achieved for other clinical and economic metrics: hospital stays were short, use of the intensive care unit was rare, and costs were contained.

These outcomes were scrutinized to determine whether traditional standards of quality in elderly patients rival those of younger patients. Our initial experience demonstrates that older patients have significant increases in complications, resource utilization, duration of hospital stay, and costs. However, deeper analysis—using the O:E morbidity calculations and DBCM—reveals that these outcomes depend on several factors.

The O:E analysis demonstrates that, overall, outcomes were actually slightly better than expected. Over time, surgical performance also improved considerably for both groups but was more impressive among the younger cohort. One explanation for this phenomenon is the implementation of a detailed clinical pathway and the adoption of several process and system improvements.17 These initiatives, which were generally oriented to the requirements of nonelderly patients, helped reduce thromboembolic, respiratory, infectious, and intra-abdominal complications. However, the present analysis has brought to light the following 4 themes, not originally addressed in our standardized care pathway, which affect elderly patients disproportionately: postoperative delirium, blood transfusion, supplemental nutritional support, and postoperative disposition.

Analysis using DBCM demonstrates that the severity of complications also dictates clinical outcomes. Minor events, although more frequent in the elderly, had no measurable effect on clinical outcomes or costs. In this deviation category, morbidity, duration of hospital stay, and costs matched the established benchmarks of younger patients. Moderate complications resulted in more therapeutic interventions and a marginal increase in hospital stays. Major complications, however, were considerably more debilitating among older patients. Hospital stays were nearly doubled, and elderly patients regularly required more invasive interventions to shepherd them to full recovery. This reflects early vigilance and relative aggressiveness to control the devastating effects of major complications in the elderly, who have less reserve to overcome such predicaments. That intraoperative blood loss is the only defined association with the development of major complications speaks to the importance of the original operative endeavor and suggests that specialized expertise in these operations is requisite for optimal outcomes. In sum, DBCM estimates that, overall, an elderly patient will experience a 2.2-day increase in hospital stay beyond that of younger patients, costing an additional $9577.

There are inherent limitations to this analysis. This study was conducted within a single specialty practice at a high-volume institution, preventing comparison across the variety of practices performing these operations. Patients may differ with respect to comorbid illness, pathological disease, surgical techniques, and management strategies. Second, posthospitalization costs, particularly rehabilitation placement, likely are considerable. Therefore, the reported cost differential between elderly and nonelderly patients underestimates the overall impact. Third, we defined elderly patients as those 75 years or older. This cutoff, although seemingly arbitrary, was selected because many physicians consider patients older than 75 years to be of too high a surgical risk, particularly for invasive operations with considerable blood loss and great propensity for postoperative morbidity. Furthermore, although people 65 years or older now represent the fastest growing segment of our society, those 75 years or older will create the greatest demand for health care in the future. Little is yet known about surgical outcomes among this cohort, particularly for pancreatic cancer, for which few patients are afforded the option of surgery. Finally, people aged 65 to 75 years are increasingly regarded as surgical candidates. When successful, surgery can expect to extend these patients' lives another 10 to 15 years or more. A consolidation of people older than 65 years with those aged 65 to 75 years is appropriate because previous studies show that these age groups have similar outcomes. For these reasons, we chose an age cutoff of 75 years, although we acknowledge that a more (ie, ≥80 years) or less (ie, <65 years) stringent analysis may provide different outcomes, but likely would not significantly alter the concepts borne out herein. In addition, this study was limited to pancreatic resections because these operations represent high-acuity procedures with a significant risk of morbidity based on heterogeneous patient demographics and the natural history of the pathological disease encountered. It remains unclear whether similar encouraging outcomes will manifest in elderly patients who undergo other high-acuity operations (ie, hepatectomy, esophagectomy, and abdominoperineal resection). Nevertheless, the principles of this analysis can easily be extended to such scenarios. Finally, this retrospective analysis did not examine or compare long-term functional and quality-of-life metrics, an emerging concept deserving of detailed prospective analysis.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this study have prompted us to adopt 4 age-related process improvement measures to target elderly patients at risk for hemodynamic compromise, postoperative delirium, and infectious complications. Specifically, we now use geriatric consultation preoperatively for all patients 75 years or older to address cardiorespiratory conditions, adjust plans for fluid resuscitation and pain control, and limit postoperative delirium. These dedicated gerontologists, who are familiar with complications in high-acuity surgery, provide additional evaluation of patients' cognitive and functional status. Unlike anesthesiologists and surgeons, they are trained to address important but underrecognized issues that profoundly affect surgical outcomes. These include delirium, dementia, depression, anorexia, skin breakdown, polypharmacy, glucose intolerance, and the multifactoral interactions that affect cardiorespiratory, digestive, and neurocognitive function. Other disciplines trained in the assessment and management of these issues can help achieve optimal outcomes but probably at higher cost and without access to the venues of postacute care that are more readily available to geriatricians. Therefore, we endorse that all patients undergo geriatric evaluation and comanagement, believing that this does not supplant the assessments of other specialists but instead augments optimal care.

As has been our practice, all patients, elderly and nonelderly, routinely undergo preoperative evaluation for anemia and bleeding diatheses. When abnormalities are discovered, further evaluation of causality is performed, and values are corrected before resection is performed. Transfusion is applied more liberally for elderly patients in the operative and postoperative settings. All patients 75 years or older now receive prophylactic placement of feeding jejunostomy tubes to reduce reliance on total parenteral nutrition with its attendant risks of infection and thrombosis. There have been few adverse events associated with this practice. A single elderly patient had the use of an externally damaged jejunostomy tube aborted in the early postoperative period. Other complications, such as gastrointestinal tract bleeding, obstruction, bowel ischemia, or site infections, have not been observed. Finally, elderly patients undergo early postoperative disposition planning during the initial gerontology consultation to facilitate the swifter transition from the acute-care hospital setting.

In summary, this study suggests that current standards for pancreatic resection in the elderly can and should mirror those for younger patients. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously. We treated a carefully selected population that was referred, largely by gastroenterology specialists, for surgery at a multidisciplinary specialty center, inferring an element of referral bias. Nevertheless, the results of this study should broaden current considerations for operative candidates in this domain. We believe that regular geriatric consultation, incorporated into a standardized care pathway, can be a model to improve other high-acuity elective operations for this cohort.

Correspondence: Charles M. Vollmer Jr, MD, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Stoneman 9, Boston, MA 02215 (cvollmer@bidmc.harvard.edu).

Accepted for Publication: October 15, 2008.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Pratt, Schreiber, Lipsitz, and Vollmer. Acquisition of data: Pratt, Gangavati, Agarwal, Callery, and Vollmer. Analysis and interpretation of data: Pratt, Gangavati, Lipsitz, and Vollmer. Drafting of the manuscript: Pratt and Lipsitz. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Pratt, Gangavati, Agarwal, Schreiber, Lipsitz, Callery, and Vollmer. Statistical analysis: Pratt. Obtained funding: Pratt and Lipsitz. Administrative, technical, and material support: Agarwal, Schreiber, Lipsitz, Callery, and Vollmer. Study supervision: Gangavati, Lipsitz, Callery, and Vollmer.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by a Clinical Research Fellowship Award from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Dr Pratt), the PASTEUR program (Dr Pratt) and the Office of Enrichment Programs (Dr Pratt) at Harvard Medical School, the Edyth and Irving S. Usen and Family Chair in Geriatric Medicine at Hebrew Senior Life (Dr Lipsitz), and grant POI AG004390 from the National Institute on Aging (Dr Lipsitz).

Additional Contributions: Gail Piatkowski, BS, Kathleen Murray, BS, Elizabeth Wood, BS, and Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, of the Department of Health Care Quality Outcomes at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, provided support and assistance for this study.

He  WSengupta  MVelkoff  VADeBarros  KAUS Census Bureau, 65+ in the United States: 2005.  Washington, DC US Government Printing Office2005;
Etzioni  DALiu  JHO’Connell  JBMaggard  MAKo  CY Elderly patients in surgical workloads: a population-based analysis. Am Surg 2003;69 (11) 961- 965
PubMed
National Cancer Institute, Cancer of the pancreas. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Web site http://seer.cancer.gov. Accessed April 2, 2008
Michaud  DS Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. Minerva Chir 2004;59 (2) 99- 111
PubMed
Stojadinovic  ABrooks  AHoos  AJaques  DPConlon  KCBrennan  MF An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196 (6) 954- 964
PubMed
Lowenfels  ABMaisonneuve  P Epidemiology and prevention of pancreatic cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004;34 (5) 238- 244
PubMed
Devesa  SSGrauman  DJBlot  WJPennello  GHoover  RNFraumeni  JF  Jr Atlas of Cancer Mortality in the United States, 1950-94.  Washington, DC National Institutes of Health1999;NIH publication 99-4564
Neoptolemos  JPDunn  JAStocken  DD  et al. European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer, Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358 (9293) 1576- 1585
PubMed
Aloia  TALee  JEVauthey  JN  et al.  Delayed recovery after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a major factor impairing the delivery of adjuvant therapy [published correction appears in J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(6):1304]. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (3) 347- 355
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
Porter  GAPisters  PWMansyur  C  et al.  Cost and utilization impact of a clinical pathway for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2000;7 (7) 484- 489
PubMed
Balcom  JH  IVRattner  DWWarshaw  ALChang  YFernandez-del Castillo  C Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch Surg 2001;136 (4) 391- 398
PubMed
Birkmeyer  JDFinlayson  EVABirkmeyer  CM Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001;130 (3) 415- 422
PubMed
Traverso  LWShinchi  HLow  DE Useful benchmarks to evaluate outcomes after esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2004;187 (5) 604- 608
PubMed
McGory  MLShekelle  PGRubenstein  LZFink  AKo  CY Developing quality indicators for elderly patients undergoing abdominal operations. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201 (6) 870- 883
PubMed
Cameron  JLRiall  TSColeman  JBelcher  KA One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 2006;244 (1) 10- 15
PubMed
Vollmer  CM  JrPratt  WVanounou  TMaithel  SKCallery  MP Quality assessment in high-acuity surgery: volume and mortality are not enough. Arch Surg 2007;142 (4) 371- 380
PubMed
Vanounou  TPratt  WFischer  JEVollmer  CM  JrCallery  MP Deviation-based cost modeling: a novel model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of clinical pathways. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (4) 570- 579
PubMed
Pratt  WJoseph  SCallery  MPVollmer  CM  Jr POSSUM accurately predicts morbidity for pancreatic resection. Surgery 2008;143 (1) 8- 19
PubMed
American Society of Anesthesiologists, New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963;24 (1) 111
Karnofsky  DABurchenal  JHK The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. McLeod  CMEvaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents New York, NY Columbia University1948;191- 205
Dindo  DDemartines  NClavien  PA Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240 (2) 205- 213
PubMed
Copeland  GPJones  DWalters  M POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 1991;78 (3) 355- 360
PubMed
Hosmer  DWLemeshow  S Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY John Wiley & Sons Inc2000;
Forrest  JFLongmire  WP  Jr Carcinoma of the pancreas and periampullary region. Ann Surg 1979;189 (2) 129- 138
PubMed
Herter  FPCooperman  AMAhlborn  TNAntinori  C Surgical experience with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Ann Surg 1982;195 (3) 274- 281
PubMed
Kairaluoma  MIKiviniemi  HStahlberg  M Pancreatic resection for carcinoma for the pancreas and the periampullary region in patients over 70 years of age. Br J Surg 1987;74 (2) 116- 118
PubMed
Fong  YBlumgart  LHFortner  JFBrennan  MF Pancreatic or liver resection for malignancy is safe and effective for the elderly. Ann Surg 1995;222 (4) 426- 437
PubMed
Lightner  AMGlasgow  REJordan  TH  et al.  Pancreatic resection in the elderly. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198 (5) 697- 706
PubMed
Brozzetti  SMazzoni  GMiccini  M  et al.  Surgical treatment of pancreatic head carcinoma in elderly patients. Arch Surg 2006;141 (2) 137- 142
PubMed
Makary  MAWinter  JMCameron  JL  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the very elderly. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10 (3) 347- 356
PubMed
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEFinlayson  EV  et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346 (15) 1128- 1137
PubMed

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Preoperative Patient Characteristics for Nonelderly and Elderly Patientsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Operative Outcomes for Nonelderly and Elderly Patients After Pancreatic Resectiona
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Postoperative Outcomes for Nonelderly and Elderly Patients After Pancreatic Resectiona
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Economic Outcomes for Nonelderly and Elderly Patients Undergoing Pancreatic Resection
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Deviation-Based Cost Modeling for Comparison of Nonelderly and Elderly Patients

References

He  WSengupta  MVelkoff  VADeBarros  KAUS Census Bureau, 65+ in the United States: 2005.  Washington, DC US Government Printing Office2005;
Etzioni  DALiu  JHO’Connell  JBMaggard  MAKo  CY Elderly patients in surgical workloads: a population-based analysis. Am Surg 2003;69 (11) 961- 965
PubMed
National Cancer Institute, Cancer of the pancreas. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Web site http://seer.cancer.gov. Accessed April 2, 2008
Michaud  DS Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. Minerva Chir 2004;59 (2) 99- 111
PubMed
Stojadinovic  ABrooks  AHoos  AJaques  DPConlon  KCBrennan  MF An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196 (6) 954- 964
PubMed
Lowenfels  ABMaisonneuve  P Epidemiology and prevention of pancreatic cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004;34 (5) 238- 244
PubMed
Devesa  SSGrauman  DJBlot  WJPennello  GHoover  RNFraumeni  JF  Jr Atlas of Cancer Mortality in the United States, 1950-94.  Washington, DC National Institutes of Health1999;NIH publication 99-4564
Neoptolemos  JPDunn  JAStocken  DD  et al. European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer, Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358 (9293) 1576- 1585
PubMed
Aloia  TALee  JEVauthey  JN  et al.  Delayed recovery after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a major factor impairing the delivery of adjuvant therapy [published correction appears in J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(6):1304]. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (3) 347- 355
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
Porter  GAPisters  PWMansyur  C  et al.  Cost and utilization impact of a clinical pathway for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2000;7 (7) 484- 489
PubMed
Balcom  JH  IVRattner  DWWarshaw  ALChang  YFernandez-del Castillo  C Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch Surg 2001;136 (4) 391- 398
PubMed
Birkmeyer  JDFinlayson  EVABirkmeyer  CM Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001;130 (3) 415- 422
PubMed
Traverso  LWShinchi  HLow  DE Useful benchmarks to evaluate outcomes after esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2004;187 (5) 604- 608
PubMed
McGory  MLShekelle  PGRubenstein  LZFink  AKo  CY Developing quality indicators for elderly patients undergoing abdominal operations. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201 (6) 870- 883
PubMed
Cameron  JLRiall  TSColeman  JBelcher  KA One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 2006;244 (1) 10- 15
PubMed
Vollmer  CM  JrPratt  WVanounou  TMaithel  SKCallery  MP Quality assessment in high-acuity surgery: volume and mortality are not enough. Arch Surg 2007;142 (4) 371- 380
PubMed
Vanounou  TPratt  WFischer  JEVollmer  CM  JrCallery  MP Deviation-based cost modeling: a novel model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of clinical pathways. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204 (4) 570- 579
PubMed
Pratt  WJoseph  SCallery  MPVollmer  CM  Jr POSSUM accurately predicts morbidity for pancreatic resection. Surgery 2008;143 (1) 8- 19
PubMed
American Society of Anesthesiologists, New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963;24 (1) 111
Karnofsky  DABurchenal  JHK The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. McLeod  CMEvaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents New York, NY Columbia University1948;191- 205
Dindo  DDemartines  NClavien  PA Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240 (2) 205- 213
PubMed
Copeland  GPJones  DWalters  M POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 1991;78 (3) 355- 360
PubMed
Hosmer  DWLemeshow  S Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY John Wiley & Sons Inc2000;
Forrest  JFLongmire  WP  Jr Carcinoma of the pancreas and periampullary region. Ann Surg 1979;189 (2) 129- 138
PubMed
Herter  FPCooperman  AMAhlborn  TNAntinori  C Surgical experience with pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Ann Surg 1982;195 (3) 274- 281
PubMed
Kairaluoma  MIKiviniemi  HStahlberg  M Pancreatic resection for carcinoma for the pancreas and the periampullary region in patients over 70 years of age. Br J Surg 1987;74 (2) 116- 118
PubMed
Fong  YBlumgart  LHFortner  JFBrennan  MF Pancreatic or liver resection for malignancy is safe and effective for the elderly. Ann Surg 1995;222 (4) 426- 437
PubMed
Lightner  AMGlasgow  REJordan  TH  et al.  Pancreatic resection in the elderly. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198 (5) 697- 706
PubMed
Brozzetti  SMazzoni  GMiccini  M  et al.  Surgical treatment of pancreatic head carcinoma in elderly patients. Arch Surg 2006;141 (2) 137- 142
PubMed
Makary  MAWinter  JMCameron  JL  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the very elderly. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10 (3) 347- 356
PubMed
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEFinlayson  EV  et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346 (15) 1128- 1137
PubMed

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.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

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

Related Content

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

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Case Resolution

The Rational Clinical Examination
Clinical Scenarios