Prospective, randomized trial of octreotide to prevent pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant disease

A M Lowy, J E Lee, P W Pisters, B S Davidson, C J Fenoglio, P Stanford, R Jinnah, D B Evans, A M Lowy, J E Lee, P W Pisters, B S Davidson, C J Fenoglio, P Stanford, R Jinnah, D B Evans

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to determine whether the perioperative administration of octreotide decreases the incidence of pancreatic anastomotic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy.

Summary background data: Three multicenter, prospective, randomized trials concluded that patients who receive octreotide during and after pancreatic resection have a reduction in the total number of complications or a decreased incidence of pancreatic fistula. However, in the subset of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy, either no analysis was performed or no benefit from octreotide could be demonstrated.

Methods: A single-institution, prospective, randomized trial was conducted between June 1991 and December 1995 involving 120 patients who were randomized to receive octreotide (150 microg subcutaneously every 8 hours through postoperative day 5) or no further treatment after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy. The surgical technique was standardized, and the pancreaticojejunal anastomosis was created using the duct-to-mucosa or invagination technique.

Results: The two patient groups were similar with respect to patient demographics, treatment variables, and histologic diagnoses. The rate of clinically significant pancreatic leak was 12% in the octreotide group and 6% in the control group (p = 0.23). Perioperative morbidity was 30% and 25%, respectively. Patients who underwent reoperative pancreaticoduodenectomy had an increased incidence of pancreatic anastomotic leak, whereas those who received preoperative chemoradiation had a decreased incidence of pancreatic anastomotic leak.

Conclusions: The routine use of octreotide after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy cannot be recommended.

References

    1. Ann Surg. 1993 Jul;218(1):54-60
    1. Am J Surg. 1993 Feb;165(2):270-2
    1. Am J Surg. 1994 Jan;167(1):104-11; discussion 111-3
    1. Ann Surg. 1994 Feb;219(2):211-21
    1. Br J Surg. 1994 Feb;81(2):265-9
    1. Am J Surg. 1994 Jul;168(1):66-8
    1. Am J Surg. 1994 Oct;168(4):295-8
    1. Surgery. 1995 Jan;117(1):26-31
    1. Arch Surg. 1995 Mar;130(3):295-9; discussion 299-300
    1. Am Surg. 1995 Apr;61(4):322-3
    1. Am J Surg. 1995 Jun;169(6):585-8
    1. Ann Surg. 1995 Jun;221(6):635-45; discussion 645-8
    1. Ann Surg. 1995 Jun;221(6):721-31; discussion 731-3
    1. Ann Surg. 1995 Oct;222(4):580-8; discussion 588-92
    1. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1995 Oct;40(5):319-23
    1. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jan 25;334(4):246-54
    1. Am J Surg. 1996 Jan;171(1):118-24; discussion 124-5
    1. Ann Surg. 1996 Feb;223(2):154-62
    1. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 9;334(19):1209-15
    1. Surgery. 1996 Mar;119(3):281-7
    1. Pancreas. 1996 May;12(4):373-80
    1. Adv Surg. 1996;29:235-62
    1. J Clin Oncol. 1997 Mar;15(3):928-37
    1. Am J Surg. 1996 Nov;172(5):432-7; discussion 437-8
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1986 Nov;163(5):428-32
    1. Br J Surg. 1987 May;74(5):392-4
    1. Am J Surg. 1988 Jan;155(1):36-42
    1. Am J Surg. 1989 May;157(5):459-62
    1. World J Surg. 1989 Jan-Feb;13(1):105-10; discussion 110-1
    1. Arch Surg. 1991 Jul;126(7):885-9
    1. Arch Surg. 1991 Aug;126(8):1037-40
    1. Am J Surg. 1992 Jan;163(1):125-30; discussion 130-1
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992 Apr;174(4):329-31
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992 Dec;175(6):555-62
    1. Am J Surg. 1993 Jan;165(1):68-72; discussion 72-3
    1. Surgery. 1994 Jan;115(1):22-6

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever