TY - JOUR
T1 - Short-Term Risk of Performing Concurrent Procedures with Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Placement
AU - Brajcich, Brian C.
AU - Bentrem, David J.
AU - Yang, Anthony D.
AU - Cohen, Mark E.
AU - Ellis, Ryan J.
AU - Mahalingam, Devalingam
AU - Mulcahy, Mary F.
AU - Lidsky, Michael E.
AU - Allen, Peter J.
AU - Merkow, Ryan P.
N1 - Funding Information:
DJB is supported by the Veteran’s Administration (I01HX002290). ADY is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (K08HL145139). RPM is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K12HS026385) and an Institutional Research Grant from the American Cancer Society (IRG-18-163-24). DM provides advising or speaking services for Amgen Inc., Bristol Meyers Squibb Company, Exelixis Inc., Eisai Co. Ltd., and Genentech Inc. and receives research funding from Merck & Co. Inc. and Oncolytics Biotech Inc.
Funding Information:
DJB is supported by the Veteran’s Administration (I01HX002290). ADY is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (K08HL145139). RPM is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K12HS026385) and an Institutional Research Grant from the American Cancer Society (IRG-18-163-24). DM provides advising or speaking services for Amgen Inc., Bristol Meyers Squibb Company, Exelixis Inc., Eisai Co. Ltd., and Genentech Inc. and receives research funding from Merck & Co. Inc. and Oncolytics Biotech Inc.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Society of Surgical Oncology.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Background: Hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy is an advanced cancer therapy for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. The risk of concurrent hepatic and/or colorectal operations with HAIP placement is unknown. Our objective was to characterize the short-term outcomes of concurrent surgery with HAIP placement. Methods: The 2005–2017 ACS NSQIP dataset was queried for patients undergoing hepatic and colorectal operations with or without HAIP placement. Outcomes were compared for HAIP placement with different combined procedures. Patients who underwent procedures without HAIP placement were propensity score matched with those with HAIP placement. The primary outcome was 30-day death or serious morbidity (DSM). Secondary outcomes included infectious complications, wound complications, length of stay (LOS), and operative time. Results: Of 467 patients who underwent HAIP placement, 83.9% had concurrent surgery. The rate of DSM was 10.7% for HAIP placement alone, 19.2% with concurrent minor hepatic procedures, 22.1% with concurrent colorectal resection, 23.2% with concurrent minor hepatic plus colorectal procedures, 28.4% with concurrent major hepatic resection, and 41.7% with concurrent major hepatic plus colorectal resection. On matched analyses, there was no difference in DSM, infectious, or wound complications for procedures with HAIP placement compared with the additional procedure alone, but operative time (294.7 vs 239.8 min, difference 54.9, 95% CI 42.8–67.0) and LOS (6 vs 5, IRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08–1.33) were increased. Conclusions: HAIP placement is not associated with additional morbidity when performed with hepatic and/or colorectal surgery. Decisions regarding HAIP placement should consider the risks of concurrent operations, and patient- and disease-specific factors.
AB - Background: Hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy is an advanced cancer therapy for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. The risk of concurrent hepatic and/or colorectal operations with HAIP placement is unknown. Our objective was to characterize the short-term outcomes of concurrent surgery with HAIP placement. Methods: The 2005–2017 ACS NSQIP dataset was queried for patients undergoing hepatic and colorectal operations with or without HAIP placement. Outcomes were compared for HAIP placement with different combined procedures. Patients who underwent procedures without HAIP placement were propensity score matched with those with HAIP placement. The primary outcome was 30-day death or serious morbidity (DSM). Secondary outcomes included infectious complications, wound complications, length of stay (LOS), and operative time. Results: Of 467 patients who underwent HAIP placement, 83.9% had concurrent surgery. The rate of DSM was 10.7% for HAIP placement alone, 19.2% with concurrent minor hepatic procedures, 22.1% with concurrent colorectal resection, 23.2% with concurrent minor hepatic plus colorectal procedures, 28.4% with concurrent major hepatic resection, and 41.7% with concurrent major hepatic plus colorectal resection. On matched analyses, there was no difference in DSM, infectious, or wound complications for procedures with HAIP placement compared with the additional procedure alone, but operative time (294.7 vs 239.8 min, difference 54.9, 95% CI 42.8–67.0) and LOS (6 vs 5, IRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08–1.33) were increased. Conclusions: HAIP placement is not associated with additional morbidity when performed with hepatic and/or colorectal surgery. Decisions regarding HAIP placement should consider the risks of concurrent operations, and patient- and disease-specific factors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089824580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089824580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1245/s10434-020-08938-0
DO - 10.1245/s10434-020-08938-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 32740732
AN - SCOPUS:85089824580
SN - 1068-9265
VL - 27
SP - 5098
EP - 5106
JO - Annals of surgical oncology
JF - Annals of surgical oncology
IS - 13
ER -