4.4 Article

A prospective study of prophylactic long-acting octreotide in high-risk patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 201, 期 4, 页码 481-485

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.06.038

关键词

Pancreatic fistula; Octreotide; Pancreatoduodenectomy; Duct size

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (postoperative pancreatic fistula [POPF]) is the most common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Despite some studies showing little effect of octreotide in unselected patients, we hypothesized that in high-risk patients depot octreotide may reduce the risk of POPF. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients were prospectively evaluated for inclusion in the current study. Two groups were identified: pancreatic ducts <= 3 mm (high risk) and those with ducts > 3 mm (low risk). Thirty-two patients were low risk, whereas 36 patients were high risk. High-risk patients were treated preoperatively with depot octreotide and begun on an intravenous drip for 24 hours. Low-risk patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy without pharmacologic intervention. In contrast, the control cohort represents 106 retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy without depot octreotide injection without regard to low-or high-risk status. RESULTS: Overall, POPF was 11 of 68 (16%). Nine of 36 high risk patients treated with depot octreotide developed POPF (25%), and 2 of 32 low risk patients developed POPF (6%). In the control cohort of high-risk patients, 9 of 44 (20%) and 3 of 62 (5%) low-risk patients developed POPF (P = .628 when comparing the development of POPF in high-risk patients with or without pharmacologic intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic use of depot octreotide in high-risk patients does not result in reduced incidence of POPF. Duct size has a significant impact on the occurrence of POPF. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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