Search

Background: Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified. Methods: The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014–December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented. Results: In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3–4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries. Conclusion: Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental.

The aim of this analysis was to determine whether optimal outcomes have increased in recent years. Hepatic surgery is high risk, but regionalization and minimally invasive approaches have evolved. Best practices also have been defined with the goal of improving outcomes.The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried. Analyses were performed separately for partial (≤2 segments), major (≥3 segments), and all hepatectomies. Optimal hepatic surgery was defined as the absence of mortality, serious morbidity, need for a postoperative invasive procedure or reoperation, prolonged length of stay (75th percentile) or readmission. Tests of trend, χFrom 2014 to 2018, 17,082 hepatectomies, including 11,862 partial hepatectomies and 5,220 major hepatectomies, were analyzed. Minimally invasive approaches increased from 25.6% in 2014 to 29.6% in 2018 (P.01) and were performed more frequently for partial hepatectomies (34.2%) than major hepatectomies (14.4%) (P.01). Operative time decreased from 220 minutes in 2014 to 208 minutes in 2018 (P.05) and was lower in partial hepatectomies (189 vs 258 minutes for major hepatectomies) (P.01). Mortality (0.7%) and length of stay (4 days) were lower for partial hepatectomies compared with major hepatectomies (1.9%; 6 days), and length of stay decreased for both partial hepatectomies (5 days in 2014 to 4 days in 2018) and major hepatectomies (6 days in 2014 to 6 days in 2018) (all P.01). Postoperative sepsis (2.9% in 2014 and 2.4% in 2018), bile leaks (6% in 2014 and 4.8% in 2018), and liver failure (3.7% in 2014 and 3.3% in 2018) decreased for all patients (.05). On multivariable analyses, overall morbidity decreased for major hepatectomies (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) and all hepatectomies (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, both P.01), and optimal hepatic surgery increased over time for partial hepatectomies (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.09) and all hepatectomies (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07, both P.01).Over a 5-year period in North America, minimally invasive hepatectomies have increased, while operative time, postoperative sepsis, bile leaks, liver failure, and prolonged length of stay have decreased. Optimal hepatic surgery has increased for partial and all hepatectomies and is achieved more often in partial than in major resections.

Background: Total pancreatectomy has high morbidity and mortality and differences among countries are currently unknown. This study compared the use and postoperative outcomes of total pancreatec-tomy among 4 Western countries. Methods: Patients who underwent one-stage total pancreatectomy were included from registries in the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (2014-2018). Use of total pancreatectomy was assessed by calculating the ratio total pancreatectomy to pancreatoduodenectomy. Primary outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien Dindo >3) and in-hospital mortality. Predictors for the primary outcomes were assessed in multivariable logistic regression analyses. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of volume (low-volume 40 pancreatoduodenectomies annually; data available for the Netherlands and Germany). Results: In total, 1,579 patients underwent one-stage total pancreatectomy. The relative use of total pancreatectomy to pancreatoduodenectomy varied up to fivefold (United States 0.03, Germany 0.15, the Netherlands 0.03, and Sweden 0.15; P < .001). Both the indication and several baseline characteristics differed significantly among countries. Major morbidity occurred in 423 patients (26.8%) and differed (22.3%, 34.9%, 38.3%, and 15.9%, respectively; P < .001). In-hospital mortality occurred in 85 patients (5.4%) and also differed (1.8%, 10.2%, 10.8%, 1.9%, respectively; P < .001). Country, age >75, and vascular resection were predictors for in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was lower in high-volume centers in the Netherlands (4.9% vs 23.1%; P = .002), but not in Germany (9.8% vs 10.6%; P = .733). Conclusion: Considerable differences in the use of total pancreatectomy, patient characteristics, and postoperative outcome were noted among 4 Western countries with better outcomes in the United States and Sweden. These large, yet unexplained, differences require further research to ultimately improve patient outcome. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

The aim of this analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of resection and enucleation of small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs).The 2014-17 American College of Surgeons-NSQIP dataset was queried. Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (N = 297) or distal pancreatectomy (N = 712) for nonfunctional, small PNETs (T1/T2) were compared to 127 patients (11%) who were enucleated.Operative time (170 vs 261, p 0.01) and transfusions were less in the enucleation cohort (1.6% vs 6.7% p 0.01). There was no difference in postoperative pancreatic fistulas, but morbidity was lower in enucleated patients (36.2% vs 48.7% p 0.01). Fifteen resected patients died postoperatively (1.5%) while all enucleated patients survived (p = 0.058). Mean postoperative length of stay was shorter after enucleation (5.7 vs 7.2 days p 0.01).Enucleation of PNETs is performed in only 11% of patients, but takes less time, requires fewer transfusions, and is associated with reduced morbidity and shorter length of stay than resection.

To compare the rate of postoperative 30-day complications between laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Previous studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD) - either laparoscopic (LPD) or robotic (RPD) - is non-inferior to open PD in terms of operative outcomes. However, a direct comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches has not been rigorously performed.Patients who underwent MI-PD were abstracted from the 2014-2019 pancreas-targeted ACS NSQIP dataset. Optimal outcome was defined as absence of postoperative mortality, serious complication, percutaneous drainage, reoperation, and prolonged length of stay (75th percentile, 11▒d) with no readmission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare optimal outcome of RPD and LPD.1,540 MI-PDs were identified between 2014-2019, of which 885 (57%) were RPD and 655 (43%) were LPD. The rate of RPD cases/year significantly increased from 2.4% to 8.4% (P=0.008) from 2014-2019, while LPD remained unchanged. Similarly, the rate of optimal outcome for RPD increased during the study period from 48.2% to 57.8% (P0.001) but significantly decreased for LPD (53.5% to 44.9%, P0.001). During 2018-2019, RPD outcomes surpassed LPD for any complication (OR 0.58, P=0.004), serious complications (OR 0.61, P=0.011), and optimal outcome (OR 1.78, P=0.001).RPD adoption increased compared to LPD and was associated with decreased overall complications, serious complications, and increased optimal outcome compared to LPD in 2018-2019.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after pancreatoduodenectomy across the Atlantic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: FTR, or mortality after development of a major complication, is a quality metric originally created to compare hospital results. FTR has been studied in North American and Northern European patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). However, a direct comparison of FTR after PD between North America and Northern Europe has not been performed. METHODS: Patients who underwent PD in North America, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany (GAPASURG dataset) were identified from their respective registries (2014-17). Patients who developed a major complication defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥3 or developed a grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) were included. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared between patients with and without FTR. Variables significant on univariable analysis were entered into a logistic regression for FTR. RESULTS: Major complications occurred in 6188 of 22,983 patients (26.9%) after PD, and 504 (8.1%) patients had FTR. North American and Northern European patients with complications differed, and rates of FTR were lower in North America (5.4% vs 12%, P < 0.001). Fourteen factors from univariable analysis contributing to differences in patients who developed FTR were included in a logistic regression. On multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with FTR were age, American Society of Anesthesiology ≥3, Northern Europe, POPF, organ failure, life-threatening complication, nonradiologic intervention, and reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with severe systemic diseases are more difficult to rescue. Failure to rescue is more common in Northern Europe than North America. In stable patients, management of complications by interventional radiology is preferred over reoperation.

Race has been shown to impact receipt of and outcomes following hepatobiliary surgery. We sought to determine if racial disparities in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma persist. Information on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed between 2012 and 2016 was obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The sample was stratified by race/ethnicity, and associations between tumor characteristics, treatment, and survival were assessed. Of 33,672 patients, the mean age was 65 years, and 77% were male. By race, 17,150 (51%) were white, 4755 (14%) black, 6850 (20%) Hispanic, and 4917 (15%) Asian. When assessing the likelihood of treatment versus no treatment for tumors less than 5 cm, no difference was observed between whites and blacks in any year, but Hispanics were less likely than whites to receive treatment in most years. Asians were more likely to receive treatment every year. When assessing the likelihood of transplant versus surgical resection, blacks were less likely than whites to undergo transplant in all years except 2016. Hispanics were equally likely, while Asians were less likely to undergo transplant in all years. For years 2012 to 2016 collectively, Asians had better 5-year survival rates than other races after undergoing ablation and resection. No difference in the risk of death was observed among blacks, whites, or Hispanics after undergoing ablation, resection, or transplant. Racial disparities for blacks and Hispanics have improved. Although Asians were less likely to undergo transplant, they had better survival after undergoing resection or ablation.

Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is often performed in frail patients and is associated with significant morbidity. The five-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) has been utilized to predict adverse postoperative outcomes, but has not been tested in PD. We aimed to develop risk tools to generate and predict 30-day outcomes after PD and compare their performance with the mFI-5. Risk tools were then used to generate a PD-specific calculator. Elective PDs from the 2014–2016 ACS NSQIP® Procedure Targeted Pancreatectomy PUFs were identified. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to predict postoperative mortality, any complication, serious complication, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), and discharge not-to-home. Predictive accuracy was evaluated through repeated stratified tenfold cross-validation and compared to the mFI-5. Nine thousand eight hundred sixty-seven PDs were captured. Nine risk factors were retained: sex, age, BMI, DM, HTN, ASA classification, pancreatic duct size, gland texture, and adenocarcinoma. Cross-validated C-indices ranged from 0.49 to 0.61 for the mFI-5 and 0.63 to 0.75 for our risk models. The best-performing model was for discharge not-to-home (C = 0.75), and the model delivering the largest increase in predictive accuracy was for CR-POPF (CmFI-5/Model = 0.49/0.70). A user-friendly risk calculator was created predicting the five outcomes of interest. We have created a PD-specific risk calculator that outperforms the mFI-5. This calculator may serve as a useful adjunct in shared decision-making for patients and surgeons.

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies. Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014–2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias. Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p

The introduction of more effective chemotherapy a decade ago has led to increased use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this study was to assess the evolving use of NAT in individuals with PDAC undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and to compare their outcomes with patients undergoing upfront operation.The American College of Surgeons NSQIP Procedure Targeted Pancreatectomy database was queried from 2014 to 2019. Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were evaluated based on the use of NAT versus upfront operation. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the effect of NAT on postoperative outcomes, including the composite measure optimal pancreatic surgery (OPS). Mann-Kendall trend tests were performed to assess the use of NAT and associated outcomes over time.A total of 13,257 patients were identified who underwent PD for PDAC between 2014 and 2019. Overall, 33.6% of patients received NAT. The use of NAT increased steadily from 24.2% in 2014 to 42.7% in 2019 (p0.0001). On multivariable analysis, NAT was associated with reduced serious morbidity (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, p0.001), clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas (OR 0.52, p0.001), organ space infections (OR 0.74, p0.001), percutaneous drainage (OR 0.73, p0.001), reoperation (OR 0.76, p = 0.005), and prolonged length of stay (OR 0.63, p0.001). OPS was achieved more frequently in patients undergoing NAT (OR 1.433, p0.001) and improved over time in patients receiving NAT (50.7% to 56.6%, p0.001).NAT before pancreatoduodenectomy increased more than 3-fold over the past decade and was associated with improved optimal operative outcomes.

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine in-hospital mortality, post-surgical thromboembolic events, and health care costs associated with the placement of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) prior to bariatric surgery. Background The role of prophylactic IVCFs prior to bariatric surgery is controversial, and the nationwide clinical outcomes associated with this practice are unknown. Methods This observational study used the National Inpatient Sample database to identify obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2005 to September 2015. Using propensity score matching, outcomes associated with patients receiving prophylactic IVCFs prior to their bariatric surgery were compared with those among patients who did not receive IVCFs. Results A total of 258,480 patients underwent bariatric surgery, of whom 1,047 (0.41%) had prophylactic IVCFs implanted. Patients with prophylactic IVCFs compared with those without IVCFs had a significantly higher rate of the combined endpoint of in-hospital mortality or pulmonary embolism (1.4% vs. 0.4%; odds ratio: 3.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25 to 11.30; p = 0.019). Additionally, prophylactic IVCFs were associated with higher rates of lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis (1.8% vs. 0.3%; odds ratio: 6.33; 95% CI: 1.87 to 21.4; p Conclusions In this nationwide observational study, prophylactic IVCF implantation prior to bariatric surgery was associated with worse clinical outcomes and increased health care resource utilization.

The objectives are to report practice patterns and management of operatively placed drains and to compare outcomes in patients with early versus delayed drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy.Early drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy, when guided by postoperative day (POD) 1 drain fluid amylase (DFA-1), is associated with reduced rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). However, whether surgeons have altered their management based on this strategy is unknown.The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 2014 Participant Use File was queried to identify patients having undergone pancreatoduodenectomy (n = 3093). Patients with intraoperatively placed drains were stratified according to measurement of DFA-1 and day of drain removal. Patients with POD 1 DFA-1 of ≤5000 U/L whose drains were removed by POD 3 were propensity score-matched with patients whose drains were removed after POD 3.Of 2698 patients, 580 (21.5%) had a DFA-1 recorded. Measurement of DFA-1 was associated with earlier time to drain removal and shorter postoperative length of stay (P0.01). Propensity score matching revealed that early drain removal when DFA-1 was ≤5000 U/L was associated with significant (P0.05) reductions in overall morbidity (35.3% vs 52.3%), CR-POPF (0.9% vs 7.9%), and length of stay (6 vs 8 days).Significant variation exists in the use of drain fluid amylase in the management and timing of surgical drain removal after pancreatoduodenectomy. Clinical outcomes are best when drain fluid amylase is low and operatively placed drains are removed by POD 3.

Background Whether the choice of antibiotic prophylaxis, the type of incision, or the use of wound protectors decreases surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains unknown. Methods Patients undergoing open, elective PD between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017 were identified from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the association of antibiotic prophylaxis type, incision type, and wound protector use on the incidence of any, superficial, and organ/space SSIs, and to profile hospitals. Results Overall, 5969 patients were included from 140 hospitals. The overall rate of SSI was 20.3% (n = 1213). Superficial SSIs occurred in 432 (7.2%) patients and organ/space SSIs in 841 (14.1%). Wound protector use was associated with 23% lower odds of experiencing any SSIs (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60–0.98), reflective of the decreased odds associated with superficial SSIs (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44–0.97), but not organ/space SSIs (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68–1.17). Highest-performing hospitals frequently utilized broad-spectrum antibiotics, midline incisions, and wound protectors. Conclusion Wound protectors reduced superficial, but not organ/space, infections in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Routine use of wound protectors in patients undergoing proximal pancreatectomy is recommended.

Background Perioperative blood transfusions and operative time are surgical quality indicators. The aim of this analysis is to determine which of these variables drives post-hepatectomy outcomes. Methods Patients undergoing major or partial hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hepatectomy targeted database. Prolonged operative time was defined as ≥ 240 minutes. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed for multiple postoperative outcomes. Results Of 20 521 hepatectomies, 18% of patients received a perioperative transfusion, and the median operative time was 218 minutes. Patients receiving a transfusion had a significant ( P < .001) increase in mortality (5.1% vs. .7%) and serious morbidity (43% vs. 16%). Prolonged operative time was associated with significantly ( P < .001) increased mortality (2.4% vs. .8%) and serious morbidity (29% vs. 14%). Those with primary hepatobiliary cancer had the highest rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality compared to patients with metastatic and benign disease when a transfusion occurred. On multivariable regression analyses, perioperative transfusions conferred a higher risk ( P < .001) than prolonged operative time for mortality (OR 5.02 vs. 1.47) and serious morbidity (OR 2.56 vs. 1.50). Conclusions Perioperative blood transfusions are a more robust predictor of post-hepatectomy outcomes than increased operative time, especially in patients with primary hepatobiliary cancer.

IntroductionAlthough antibiotic prophylaxis is established in reducing postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs), the optimal antibiotic for prophylaxis in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains unclear. The study objective is to evaluate if administration of piperacillin–tazobactam as antibiotic prophylaxis results in decreased 30-day SSI rate compared with cefoxitin in patients undergoing elective PD.Methods and analysisThis study will be a multi-institution, double-arm, non-blinded randomised controlled superiority trial. Adults ≥18 years consented to undergo PD for all indications who present to institutions participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (NSQIP HPB) Collaborative will be included. Data collection will use the NSQIP HPB Collaborative Surgical Clinical Reviewers. Patients will be randomised to either 1–2 g intravenous cefoxitin or 3.375–4.5 g intravenous piperacillin–tazobactam within 60 min of surgical incision. The primary outcome will be 30-day postoperative SSI rate following PD. Secondary outcomes will include 30-day postoperative mortality; specific postoperative complication rate; and unplanned reoperation, length of stay, and hospital readmission. A subset of patients will have bacterial isolates and sensitivities of intraoperative bile cultures and SSIs. Postoperative SSIs and secondary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with the primary predictor as the randomised treatment group. Additional adjustment will be made for preoperative biliary stent presence. Additionally, bacterial cultures and isolates will be summarised by presence of bacterial species and antibiotic sensitivities.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Institutional Review Board at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. This trial will evaluate the effect of piperacillin–tazobactam compared with cefoxitin as antibiotic prophylaxis on the hazard of postoperative SSIs. The results will be disseminated regardless of the effect of the intervention on study outcomes. The manuscript describing the effect of the intervention will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when data collection and analyses are complete.Trial registration numberNCT03269994.

Background: Registries of pancreatic surgery have become increasingly popular as they facilitate both quality improvement and clinical research. We aimed to compare registries for design, variables collected, patient characteristics, treatment strategies, clinical outcomes, and pathology. Methods: Registered variables and outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (2014–2017) in 4 nationwide or multicenter pancreatic surgery registries from the United States of America (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program), Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie - Studien-, Dokumentations- und Qualitätszentrum), the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit), and Sweden (Swedish National Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer Registry) were compared. A core registry set of 55 parameters was identified and evaluated using relative and absolute largest differences between extremes (smallest versus largest). Results: Overall, 22,983 pancreatoduodenectomies were included (15,224, 3,558, 2,795, and 1,406 in the United States of America, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). Design of the registries varied because 20 out of 55 (36.4%) core parameters were not available in 1 or more registries. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was administered in 27.6%, 4.9%, 7.0%, and 3.4% (relative largest difference 8.1, absolute largest difference 24.2%, P < .001). Minimally invasive surgery was performed in 7.8%, 4.5%, 13.5%, and unknown (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 9.0%, P < .001). Median length of stay was 8.0, 16.0, 12.0, and 11.0 days (relative largest difference 2.0, absolute largest difference 8.0, P < .001). Reoperation was performed in 5.7%, 17.1%, 8.7%, and 11.2% (relative largest difference 3.0, absolute largest difference 11.4%, P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.3%, 4.7%, 3.6%, and 2.7% (relative largest difference 3.6, absolute largest difference 3.4%, P < .001). Conclusion: Considerable differences exist in the design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes in 4 Western registries of pancreatic surgery. The absolute largest differences of 24.3% for the use of preoperative chemotherapy, 9.0% for minimally invasive surgery, 11.4% for reoperation rate, and 3.4% for in-hospital mortality require further study and improvement. This analysis provides 55 core parameters for pancreatic surgery registries.

The albumin-bilirubin score (ALBI) has recently been shown to have increased accuracy in predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure and mortality compared with the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD). However, the use of ALBI as a predictor of postoperative mortality for other surgical procedures has not been analyzed. The aim of this study was to measure the predictive power of ALBI compared with MELD-sodium (MELD-Na) across a wide range of surgical procedures.Patients undergoing cardiac, pulmonary, esophageal, gastric, gallbladder, pancreatic, splenic, appendix, colorectal, adrenal, renal, hernia, and aortic operations were identified in the 2015-2018 American College of Surgeons NSQIP database. Patients with missing laboratory data were excluded. Univariable analysis and receiver operator characteristic curves were performed for 30-day mortality and morbidity. Areas under the curves were calculated to validate and compare the predictive abilities of ALBI and MELD-Na.Of 258,658 patients, the distribution of ALBI grades 1, 2, 3 were 51%, 42%, and 7%, respectively. Median MELD-Na was 7.50 (interquartile range 6.43 to 9.43). Overall 30-day mortality rate was 2.7% and overall morbidity was 28.6%. Increasing ALBI grade was significantly associated with mortality (ALBI grade 2: odds ratio [OR] 5.24; p0.001; ALBI grade 3: OR 25.6; p0.001) and morbidity (ALBI grade 2: OR 2.15; p0.001; ALBI grade 3: OR 6.12; p0.001). On receiver operator characteristic analysis, ALBI outperformed MELD-Na with increased accuracy in several operations.ALBI score predicts mortality and morbidity across a wide spectrum of surgical procedures. When compared with MELD-Na, ALBI more accurately predicts outcomes in patients undergoing pulmonary, elective colorectal, and adrenal operations.

As the obesity epidemic worsens, the prevalence of fatty liver disease has increased. However, minimal data exist on the impact of combined fatty liver and metabolic syndrome on hepatectomy outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this analysis is to measure the outcomes of patients who do and do not have a fatty liver undergoing hepatectomy in the presence and absence of the metabolic syndrome.Patients with fatty and normal livers undergoing major hepatectomy (≥3 segments) were identified in the 2014 to 2018 American College of Surgeon National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients undergoing partial hepatectomy and those with missing liver texture data were excluded. Propensity matching was used and adjusted for multiple variables. A subgroup analysis stratified by the metabolic syndrome (body mass index ≥30 kg/mOf 2,927 hepatectomies, 30% of patients (N = 863) had a fatty liver. The median body mass index was 28.6, and the metabolic syndrome was present in 6.3% of patients (N = 184). After propensity matching, 863 patients with fatty and 863 with normal livers were compared. Multiple outcomes were significantly worse in patients with fatty livers (P.05), including serious morbidity (32% vs 24%), postoperative invasive biliary procedures (15% vs 10%), organ space infections (11% vs 7.8%), and pulmonary complications. Patients with fatty livers and the metabolic syndrome had significantly increased postoperative cardiac arrests, pulmonary embolisms, and mortality (P.05).Fatty liver disease is associated with significantly worse outcomes after major hepatectomy. The metabolic syndrome confers an increased risk of postoperative mortality.

The Pringle Maneuver (PM) is considered to be safe and effective. However, data regarding perioperative outcomes after a PM are conflicting. Therefore, the aim of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients who have and have not undergone a PM in North America.Patients undergoing major (≥3 segments) or partial hepatectomy (≤2 segments) were identified in the 2014-17 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy database. Patients with and without a PM were compared. Propensity matching was utilized, and subgroup analyses by liver texture, hepatectomy extent and pathology were performed.Prior to matching, 3706 (24%) of 15,748 hepatectomy patients underwent a PM. The PM was utilized in 1445 (27%) of major and 2261 (22%) of partial hepatectomies. After matching, 3295 patients with and 3295 without a PM were compared. Operative time was significantly increased for patients undergoing a PM (246 vs. 225 min, p 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed post-hepatectomy liver failure and septic shock to be significantly increased (both p 0.05) for patients undergoing a PM during a partial hepatectomy or in patients with metastatic disease.Patients undergoing a partial hepatectomy and those with metastatic disease have worse outcomes when a Pringle Maneuver is performed.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) is utilized to induce growth of the future liver remnant volume (FLRV) among patients at elevated risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). The American College of Surgery National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was used to compare short-term outcomes of PVE versus non-PVE patients. A propensity score match (PSM) was used to compare short-term outcomes among PVE and non-PVE patients. Among the 11,243 patients included in the study, 462 (4.1%) patients had a PVE. Postoperatively, patients who underwent PVE had a higher incidence of overall (PVE, 44% vs. non-PVE, 23%) and liver-specific complications (biliary leak PVE, 16% vs. non-PVE, 7%; post-hepatectomy liver failure [PHLF] PVE, 17% vs. non-PVE, 5%), as well as a longer length of stay (> 7 days PVE, 39% vs. non-PVE, 22%) compared with the non-PVE group (all p

Purpose: No consensus exists regarding the most effective form of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Methods: Data were gathered through the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Pancreatectomy Demonstration Project. A total of 1781 patients underwent a PD at 43 institutions. After appropriate exclusions, 890 patients were analyzed. Patients were divided into duct-to-mucosa (n = 734, 82%) and invagination (n = 156, 18%) groups and were compared by unadjusted analysis. Type of PJ was included in eight separate morbidity and mortality multivariable analyses. Results: Invagination patients had higher serum albumin (p

Studies evaluating the efficacy of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy (MIS-PD) compared to open pancreatioduodenectomy (OPD) have been limited by selection bias and mixed outcomes.ACS-NSQIP 2014-2015 pancreas procedure-targeted data were used to identify patients undergoing PD. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.Of 7907 PD patients, 1277 (16%) underwent MIS-PD: 776 (61%) robotic or laparoscopic PD, 304 (24%) hybrid, and 197 (15%) unplanned conversions. There were no differences in demographics or comorbidities. Patients undergoing MIS-PD were less likely to have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (30.9% vs 53.9%, P 0.01) and less likely to have a dilated pancreatic duct (21.8% vs 46.7%, P 0.01). 30-day morbidity was less for MIS-PD (63.6% vs 76.9%, P 0.01), due to decreased delayed gastric emptying DGE) in the MIS-PD group (8.6% vs 15.5%, P 0.01). 30-day mortality, length-of-stay, and readmissions were not significantly different. Patients undergoing MIS-PD had greater rates of CR-POPF (15.3% vs 13.0%, P = 0.03). On adjusted multivariable analysis, MIS-PD was not associated with CR-POPF (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87-1.26) but was associated with decreased DGE (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46-0.71).MIS-PD has comparable short-term outcomes to open PD. While CR-POPF rates are greater for MIS-PD, this increased risk appears related to case-selection bias and not inherent to the MIS-approach.

The initial management of patients with suspected acute biliary infection starts with the measurement of vital signs to assess whether or not the situation is urgent. If the case is judged to be urgent, initial medical treatment should be started immediately including respiratory/circulatory management if required, without waiting for a definitive diagnosis. The patient's medical history is then taken; an abdominal examination is performed; blood tests, urinalysis, and diagnostic imaging are carried out; and a diagnosis is made using the diagnostic criteria for cholangitis/cholecystitis. Once the diagnosis has been confirmed, initial medical treatment should be started immediately, severity should be assessed according to the severity grading criteria for acute cholangitis/cholecystitis, and the patient's general status should be evaluated. For mild acute cholangitis, in most cases initial treatment including antibiotics is sufficient, and most patients do not require biliary drainage. However, biliary drainage should be considered if a patient does not respond to initial treatment. For moderate acute cholangitis, early endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is indicated. If the underlying etiology requires treatment, this should be provided after the patient's general condition has improved; endoscopic sphincterotomy and subsequent choledocholithotomy may be performed together with biliary drainage. For severe acute cholangitis, appropriate respiratory/circulatory management is required. Biliary drainage should be performed as soon as possible after the patient's general condition has been improved by initial treatment and respiratory/circulatory management. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Although the diagnostic and severity grading criteria on the 2013 Tokyo Guidelines (TG13) are used worldwide as the primary standard for management of acute cholangitis (AC), they need to be validated through implementation and assessment in actual clinical practice. Here, we conduct a systematic review of the literature to validate the TG13 diagnostic and severity grading criteria for AC and propose TG18 criteria. While there is little evidence evaluating the TG13 criteria, they were validated through a large-scale case series study in Japan and Taiwan. Analyzing big data from this study confirmed that the diagnostic rate of AC based on the TG13 diagnostic criteria was higher than that based on the TG07 criteria, and that 30-day mortality in patients with a higher severity based on the TG13 severity grading criteria was significantly higher. Furthermore, a comparison of patients treated with early or urgent biliary drainage versus patients not treated this way showed no difference in 30-day mortality among patients with Grade I or Grade III AC, but significantly lower 30-day mortality in patients with Grade II AC who were treated with early or urgent biliary drainage. This suggests that the TG13 severity grading criteria can be used to identify Grade II patients whose prognoses may be improved through biliary drainage. The TG13 severity grading criteria may therefore be useful as an indicator for biliary drainage as well as a predictive factor when assessing the patient's prognosis. The TG13 diagnostic and severity grading criteria for AC can provide results quickly, are minimally invasive for the patients, and are inexpensive. We recommend that the TG13 criteria be adopted in the TG18 guidelines and used as standard practice in the clinical setting. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included

In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo-biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail-out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail-out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouviere's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Since the publication of the Tokyo Guidelines in 2007 and their revision in 2013, appropriate management for acute cholecystitis has been more clearly established. Since the last revision, several manuscripts, especially for alternative endoscopic techniques, have been reported; therefore, additional evaluation and refinement of the 2013 Guidelines is required. We describe a standard drainage method for surgically high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis and the latest developed endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques described in the updated Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18). Our study confirmed that percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage should be considered the first alternative to surgical intervention in surgically high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Also, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage or endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage can be considered in high-volume institutes by skilled endoscopists. In the endoscopic transpapillary approach, either endoscopic naso-gallbladder drainage or gallbladder stenting can be considered for gallbladder drainage. We also introduce special techniques and the latest outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage studies. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Antimicrobial therapy is a mainstay of the management for patients with acute cholangitis and/or cholecystitis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) provides recommendations for the appropriate use of antimicrobials for community-acquired and healthcare-associated infections. The listed agents are for empirical therapy provided before the infecting isolates are identified. Antimicrobial agents are listed by class-definitions and TG18 severity grade I, II, and III subcategorized by clinical settings. In the era of emerging and increasing antimicrobial resistance, monitoring and updating local antibiograms is underscored. Prudent antimicrobial usage and early de-escalation or termination of antimicrobial therapy are now important parts of decision-making. What is new in TG18 is that the duration of antimicrobial therapy for both acute cholangitis and cholecystitis is systematically reviewed. Prophylactic antimicrobial usage for elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is no longer recommended and the section was deleted in TG18. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

The American College of Surgeons NSQIP has developed a risk calculator (RC) to assist patients and surgeons with difficult decisions. The aim of this analysis was to determine the accuracy of the RC in patients undergoing elective and emergent colorectal operations.From January 2013 through December 2015, seventy-five patients undergoing emergent colorectal operations were paired by date with 75 patients having elective colorectal operations. Patient data were entered into the RC. Actual postoperative outcomes, derived from NSQIP data, were compared with those predicted by the RC.Emergent and elective patients differed (p0.05) with respect to age, functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, steroid use, wound class, COPD, and chronic renal insufficiency. The RC accurately predicted outcomes in elective patients. Outcomes were significantly worse (p0.05) after the emergent operations. In emergent cases, the RC underestimated serious complications and length of stay and overestimated discharge to a skilled nursing facility (all p0.05).The American College of Surgeons NSQIP RC accurately predicts outcomes for elective colorectal operations. Predicted and actual outcomes are significantly better in patients undergoing elective colon operations compared with those undergoing emergent procedures. The RC should be used with caution in emergent cases, as it has the potential to underestimate serious complications and length of stay, and overestimate discharge to skilled nursing facility. Refinement of the tool to include procedure complexity and diagnosis terms might improve its accuracy in emergent cases.

The Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13) include new topics in the biliary drainage section. From these topics, we describe the indications and new techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis with videos. Recently, many novel studies and case series have been published across the world, thus TG13 need to be updated regarding the indications and selection of biliary drainage based on published data. Herein, we describe the latest updated TG13 on biliary drainage in acute cholangitis with meta-analysis. The present study showed that endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage regardless of the use of nasobiliary drainage or biliary stenting, should be selected as the first-line therapy for acute cholangitis. In acute cholangitis, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is not routinely required for biliary drainage alone because of the concern of post-EST bleeding. In case of concomitant bile duct stones, stone removal following EST at a single session may be considered in patients with mild or moderate acute cholangitis except in patients under anticoagulant therapy or with coagulopathy. We recommend the removal of difficult stones at two sessions after drainage in patients with a large stone or multiple stones. In patients with potential coagulopathy, endoscopic papillary dilation can be a better technique than EST for stone removal. Presently, balloon enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BE-ERCP) is used as the first-line therapy for biliary drainage in patients with surgically altered anatomy where BE-ERCP expertise is present. However, the technical success rate is not always high. Thus, several studies have revealed that endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) can be one of the second-line therapies in failed BE-ERCP as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage where EUS-BD expertise is present.

To compare the short-term and oncologic outcomes of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Consecutive cases of distal pancreatectomy (DP) (n = 422) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution over a 10-year period (2005–2014). Inclusion criteria consisted of any patient with PDAC by surgical pathology. Ninety-day outcomes were monitored through a prospectively maintained pancreatic resection database. The Social Security Death Index was used for 5-year survival. Two-way statistical analyses were used to compare categories; variance was reported with standard error of the mean; * indicates P value

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury (BDI) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a serious iatrogenic surgical complication. BDI most often occurs as a result of misidentification of the anatomy; however, clinical evidence on its precise mechanism and surgeons' perceptions is scarce.METHODS: Surgeons from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the U.S., etc. (n = 614) participated in a questionnaire regarding their BDI experience and near-misses; and perceptions on landmarks, intraoperative findings, and surgical techniques. Respondents voted for a Delphi process and graded each item on a five-point scale. The consensus was built when ≥80% of overall responses were 4 or 5.RESULTS: Response rates for the first- and the second-round Delphi were 60.6% and 74.9%, respectively. Misidentification of local anatomy accounted for 76.2% of BDI. Final consensus was reached on: 1) Effective retraction of the gallbladder, 2) Always obtaining critical view of safety, and 3) Avoiding excessive use of electrocautery/clipping as vital procedures; and 4) Calot's triangle area and 5) Critical view of safety as important landmarks. For 6) Impacted gallstone and 7) Severe fibrosis/scarring in Calot's triangle, bail-out procedures may be indicated.CONCLUSIONS: A consensus was reached among expert surgeons on relevant landmarks and intraoperative findings and appropriate surgical techniques to avoid BDI. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Albumin-Bilirubin score (ALBI) has been established to predict outcomes after hepatectomy. However, the relative value of ALBI and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure and mortality has not been adequately evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to validate and compare ALBI and MELD with respect to post-hepatectomy liver failure and mortality.Patients undergoing major hepatectomy (≥3 segments) or partial hepatectomy (≤2 segments) were identified in the 2014 to 2017 American College of Surgeons NSQIP Procedure Targeted Participant Use File. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed for 30-day post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and mortality. Predictive accuracy was assessed using a receiver operator characteristic curve and calculating the area under the curve (AUC).For 13,783 patients, median ALBI was -2.6, and median MELD score was 6.9. Severe PHLF (grade B to C) and mortality rates were 2.9% and 1.8%, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed ALBI grade 2/3 to be a stronger predictor than MELD ≥10 with respect to severe PHLF (odds ratio [OR] 2.30; 95% CI, 1.95 to 2.73; p0.001 vs OR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.23; p = 0.99) and mortality (OR 3.35; 95% CI, 2.49 to 4.52; p0.001 vs OR 1.73; 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.20; p0.001). ALBI also had better discrimination compared with MELD for severe PHLF (AUC 0.67 vs AUC 0.60) and mortality (AUC 0.70 vs AUC 0.58) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.ALBI is a powerful predictor of PHLF and mortality. Compared with MELD, ALBI is more accurate, especially in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE Our aims were to assess North American trends in the management of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP), and to quantify the delivery of optimal pancreatic surgery. BACKGROUND Morbidity after pancreatectomy remains unacceptably high. Recent literature suggests that composite measures may more accurately define surgical quality. METHODS The 2013 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files were queried to identify patients undergoing PD (N = 16,222) and DP (N = 7946). Patient, process, procedure, and 30-day postoperative outcome variables were analyzed over time. Optimal pancreatic surgery was defined as the absence of postoperative mortality, serious morbidity, percutaneous drainage, and reoperation while achieving a length of stay equal to or less than the 75th percentile (12 days for PD and 7 days for DP) with no readmissions. Risk-adjusted time-trend analyses were performed using logistic regression, and the threshold for statistical significance was P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS The use of minimally invasive PD did not change over time, but robotic PD increased (2.5 to 4.2%; P < 0.001) and laparoscopic PD decreased (5.8% to 4.3%; P < 0.02). Operative times decreased (P < 0.05) and fewer transfusions were administered (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a drain fluid amylase checked on postoperative day 1 increased (P < 0.001), and a greater percentage of surgical drains were removed by postoperative day 3 (P < 0.001). Overall morbidity (P < 0.02), mortality (P < 0.05), and postoperative length of stay (P = 0.002) decreased. Finally, the rate of optimal pancreatic surgery increased for PD (53.7% to 56.9%; P < 0.01) and DP (53.3% to 58.5%; P < 0.001), and alspo for patients with pancreatic cancer (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS From 2013 to 2017, pre, intra, and perioperative pancreatectomy processes have evolved, and multiple postoperative outcomes have improved. Thus, in 4 years, optimal pancreatic surgery in North America has increased by 3% to 5%.

Recent data suggest that routine drainage is unnecessary in patients undergoing hepatectomy, but many surgeons continue to utilize drains. We compared the outcomes of patients undergoing early versus routine drain removal after hepatectomy.Patients having drains placed during major (≥3 segments) or partial hepatectomy (≤2 segments) were identified in the 2014-16 ACS-NSQIP database. Propensity matching between early (POD 0-3) and routine (POD 4-7) drain removal and multivariable regressions were performed.Early drain removal was performed in 661 (40%) of patients undergoing a partial hepatectomy and 211 (22%) of major hepatectomy patients. After matching, 719 early and 719 routine drain removal patients were compared. Early drain removal patients had lower overall (12 vs 19%, p 0.001) and serious (9 vs 13%, p 0.03) morbidity as well as fewer bile leaks (2.1% vs 5.0%, p 0.003). Length of stay was two days shorter (4 vs 6 days, p 0.01) and readmissions were less frequent (5.4 vs 8.1%, p = 0.02) for patients undergoing early drain removal.Early drain removal is associated with fewer overall and serious complications, shorter length of stay and fewer readmissions. Early drain removal after hepatectomy is an underutilized management strategy.

Objective We sought to define the severity and natural history of hypertriglyceridemia induced acute pancreatitis (HTG-AP), specifically whether HTG-AP causes more severe AP than that caused by other etiologies. Methods Systematic review of the English literature. Results Thirty-four studies (15 countries; 1972–2015) included 1340 HTG-AP patients (weighted mean prevalence of 9%). The median admission triglyceride concentration was 2622 mg/dl (range 1160–9769). Patients with HTG have a 14% weighted mean prevalence of AP. Plasmapheresis decreased circulating triglycerides, but did not conclusively affect AP mortality. Only 7 reports (n = 392 patients) compared severity of HTG-AP to that of AP from other etiologies. Of these, 2 studies found no difference in severity, while 5 suggested that HTG-AP patients may have increased severity compared to AP of other etiology. Conclusions 1) hypertriglyceridemia is a relatively uncommon (9%) cause of acute pancreatitis; however, patients with hypertriglyceridemia have a high (14%) incidence of acute pancreatitis; 2) plasmapheresis may offer specific therapy unique to this patient population; and 3) data specifically comparing the severity of HTG-AP with AP caused by other etiologies are heterogeneous and scarce.