4.6 Article

Effects of low cardiopulmonary reserve on pancreatic leak following pancreaticoduodenectomy

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 99, 期 9, 页码 1290-1294

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8859

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Postoperative complications are increased in patients with reduced cardiopulmonary reserve undergoing major surgery. Pancreatic leak is an important contributor to postoperative complications and death following pancreaticoduodenectomy. The aim of this study was to determine whether reduced cardiopulmonary reserve was a risk factor for pancreatic leak. Methods: All patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2006 and July 2010 were identified from a prospectively held database. Data analysis was restricted to those who underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing during preoperative assessment. Pancreatic leak was defined as grade A, B or C according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula definition. An anaerobic threshold (AT) cut-off value of 10.1 ml per kg per min was used to identify patients with reduced cardiopulmonary reserve. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify other risk factors for pancreatic leak. Results: Some 67 men and 57 women with a median age of 66 (range 3782) years were identified. Low AT was significantly associated with pancreatic leak (45 versus 19.2 per cent in patients with greater cardiopulmonary reserve; P = 0.020), postoperative complications (70 versus 38.5 per cent; P = 0.013) and prolonged hospital stay (29.4 versus 17.5 days; P = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, an AT of 10.1 ml per kg per min or less was the only independent factor associated with pancreatic leak. Conclusion: Low cardiopulmonary reserve was associated with pancreatic leak following pancreaticoduodenectomy. AT seems a useful tool for stratifying the risk of postoperative complications. Copyright (c) 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据