Nicole Villafane-Ferriol

Nutritional and Metabolic Derangements in Pancreatic Cancer and Pancreatic Resection

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. The disease and its treatment can cause significant nutritional impairments that often adversely impact patient quality of life (QOL). The pancreas has both exocrine and endocrine functions and, in the setting of cancer, both systems may be affected. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) manifests as weight loss and steatorrhea, while endocrine insufficiency may result in diabetes mellitus. Surgical resection, a central component of pancreatic cancer treatment, may induce or exacerbate these dysfunctions. Nutritional and metabolic dysfunctions in patients with pancreatic cancer lack characterization, and few guidelines exist for nutritional support in patients after surgical resection. We reviewed publications from the past two decades (1995–2016) addressing the nutritional and metabolic status of patients with pancreatic cancer, grouping them into status at the time of diagnosis, status at the time of resection, and status of nutritional support throughout the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Here, we summarize the results of these investigations and evaluate the effectiveness of various types of nutritional support in patients after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We outline the following conservative perioperative strategies to optimize patient outcomes and guide the care of these patients: (1) patients with albumin < 2.5 mg/dL or weight loss > 10% should postpone surgery and begin aggressive nutrition supplementation; (2) patients with albumin < 3 mg/dL or weight loss between 5% and 10% should have nutrition supplementation prior to surgery; (3) enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred as a nutritional intervention over total parenteral nutrition (TPN) postoperatively; and, (4) a multidisciplinary approach should be used to allow for early detection of symptoms of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency alongside implementation of appropriate treatment to improve the patient’s quality of life.

A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial of Distal Pancreatectomy with and Without Routine Intraperitoneal Drainage

Objective: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that distal pancreatectomy (DP) without intraperitoneal drainage does not affect the frequency of grade 2 or higher grade complications. Background: The use of routine intraperitoneal drains during DP is controversial. Prior to this study, no prospective trial focusing on DP without intraperitoneal drainage has been reported. Methods: Patients undergoing DP for all causes at 14 high-volume pancreas centers were preoperatively randomized to placement of a drain or no drain. Complications and their severity were tracked for 60 days and mortality for 90 days. The study was powered to detect a 15% positive or negative difference in the rate of grade 2 or higher grade complications. All data were collected prospectively and source documents were reviewed at the coordinating center to confirm completeness and accuracy. Results: A total of 344 patients underwent DP with (N = 174) and without (N = 170) the use of intraperitoneal drainage. There were no differences between cohorts in demographics, comorbidities, pathology, pancreatic duct size, pancreas texture, or operative technique. There was no difference in the rate of grade 2 or higher grade complications (44% vs. 42%, P = 0.80). There was no difference in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (18% vs 12%, P = 0.11) or mortality (0% vs 1%, P = 0.24). DP without routine intraperitoneal drainage was associated with a higher incidence of intra-abdominal fluid collection (9% vs 22%, P = 0.0004). There was no difference in the frequency of postoperative imaging, percutaneous drain placement, reoperation, readmission, or quality of life scores. Conclusions: This prospective randomized multicenter trial provides evidence that clinical outcomes are comparable in DP with or without intraperitoneal drainage.

Evidence-Based Management of Drains Following Pancreatic Resection: A Systematic Review

Abstract Many pancreatic surgeons continue to use intraperitoneal drains, but others have limited or avoided their use, believing this improves outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing outcomes in pancreatectomy without drains, selective drainage, and early drain removal. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and conducted a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing routine intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage, selective drain use, and early versus late drain removal after pancreatectomy, with major complications as the primary outcome. A meta-analysis of the literature assessing routine use of drains was conducted using the random-effects model. A total of 461 articles met search criteria from PubMed (168 articles), Embase (263 articles), and the Cochrane Library (30 articles). After case reports and articles without primary data on complications were excluded, 14 studies were identified for systematic review. Definitive evidence-based recommendations cannot be made regarding the management of drains following pancreatectomy because of limitations in the available literature. Based on available evidence, the most conservative approach, pending further data, is routine placement of a drain and early removal unless the patients clinical course or drain fluid amylase concentration suggests a developing fistula.