Care after pancreatic resection according to an algorithm for early detection and minimally invasive management of pancreatic fistula versus current practice (PORSCH-trial): design and rationale of a nationwide stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial

Table 4 Factors associated with the composite primary endpoint in 1686 patients undergoing pancreatic resection in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit

Outcome	Univariable		Multivariable
Outcome	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value
Male gender	1.64 (1.20–2.23)	0.002	1.64 (1.19–2.27)	0.002
Age	1.02 (1.01–1.04)	0.003	1.02 (1.00–1.03)	0.04
BMI	1.00 (1.00–1.01)	0.52
ECOG performance score		0.17
2 vs. 1	1.29 (0.92–1.79)	0.14
3 vs. 1	1.59 (0.95–2.66)	0.08
4 vs. 1	0.44 (0.06–3.33)	0.43
ASA classification (3 and 4 vs. 1 and 2)	1.87 (1.33–2.61)	< 0.001	1.79 (1.26–2.53)	0.001
Preoperative additional nutrition		0.05
Oral vs. none	0.98 (0.70–1.38)	0.91
Via nasogastric tube vs. none	1.74 (0.92–3.28)	0.90
Via TPN vs. none	4.04 (1.17–14.02)	0.03
Preoperative biliary drainage	0.97 (0.71–1.32)	0.82
Distal pancreatectomy vs. pancreatoduodenectomy	0.50 (0.31–0.79)	0.003	0.58 (0.36–0.94)	0.03
Texture pancreas (hard/firm vs. soft/normal)	1.22 (0.86–1.73)	0.26

Data from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014–2015). Presented are the outcomes of univariable and multivariable logistic regression model showing gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and type of index resection are independently associated with the occurrence of the composite primary endpoint
OR odds ratio, BMI body mass index, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, TPN total parental nutrition

ISSN: 1745-6215