Introduction Improvements in the ability to predict pancreatic fistula could enhance patient outcomes. Previous studies demonstrate that drain fluid amylase on postoperative day 1 (DFA1) is predictive of pancreatic fistula. We sought to assess the accuracy of DFA1 and to identify a reliable DFA1 threshold under which pancreatic fistula is ruled out. Methods Patients undergoing pancreatic resection from November 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 were selected from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project data-base. Pancreatic fistula was defined as drainage of amylase-rich fluid with drain continuation >7 days, percutaneous drainage, or reoperation for a pancreatic fluid collection. Univariate and multi-variable regression models were utilized to identify factors predictive of pancreatic fistula. Results DFA1 was recorded in 536 of 2,805 patients who underwent pancreatic resection, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (n=380), distal pancreatectomy (n=140), and enucleation (n=16). Pancreatic fistula occurred in 92/536 (17.2 %) patients. DFA1, increased body mass index, small pancreatic duct size, and soft texture were associated with fistula (p<0.05). A DFA1 cutoff value of <90 U/L demonstrated the highest negative predictive value of 98.2 %. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve confirmed the predictive relationship of DFA1 and pancreatic fistula. Conclusion Low DFA1 predicts the absence of a pancreatic fistula. In patients with DFA1<90 U/L, early drain removal is advisable.

Objectives Determine if patients prefer multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (mv-PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for treatment of symptomatic multi-vessel coronary artery disease (mv-CAD) despite high 1-year risk. Background Patient risk perception and preference for CABG or mv-PCI to treat medically refractory mv-CAD is poorly understood. We hypothesize that patients prefer mv-PCI instead of CABG even when quoted high mv-PCI risk. Methods 585 patients and 31 physicians were presented standardized questionnaires with a hypothetical scenario describing chest pain and medically refractory mv-CAD. CABG or mv-PCI were presented as treatment options. Risk scenarios included variable 1-year risks of death, stroke and repeat procedures for mv-PCI and fixed risks for CABG. Participants indicated their preference of revascularization method based on the presented risks. We calculated the odds that patients or physicians would favor mv-PCI over CABG across a range of quoted risks of death, stroke and repeat procedures. Results For nearly all quoted risks, patients preferred mv-PCI over CABG, even when the risk of death was double the risk with CABG or the risk of repeat procedures was more than three times that for CABG (p<0.0001). Compared to patients, physicians chose mv-PCI less often than CABG as the risk of death and repeat procedures increased (p<0.001 and p=0.004, respectively). Conclusion Patients favor mv-PCI over CABG to treat mv-CAD, even if 1-year risks of death and repeat procedures far exceed risk with CABG. Physicians are more influenced by actual risk and prefer mv-PCI less than patients despite similarly quoted 1-year risks.

No abstract