ResProt JMIR Res Protoc JMIR Research Protocols 1929-0748 JMIR Publications Inc. Toronto, Canada v4i4e132 26573991 10.2196/resprot.4567 Protocol Protocol Nutritional Risk in Major Abdominal Surgery: Protocol of a Prospective Observational Trial to Evaluate the Prognostic Value of Different Nutritional Scores in Pancreatic Surgery Eysenbach Gunther Atkinson Charles Pourmalek Farshad Probst Pascal MSc, Dr med 1 2 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0895-4015 Haller Sebastian 2 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4410-7830 Dörr-Harim Colette MD 2 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1155-7336 Bruckner Thomas Dr sc hum 3 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9342-3456 Ulrich Alexis Dr med 1 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1469-2186 Hackert Thilo Dr med 1 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7012-1196 Diener Markus K Dr med 1 2 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0319-3090 Knebel Phillip Dr med 1
University of Heidelberg Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery Im Neuenheimer Feld 110 Heidelberg, 69120 Germany 49 06221 566986 49 06221 566988 phillip.knebel@med.uni-heidelberg.de
2 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7776-4653 1 University of Heidelberg Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery Heidelberg Germany 2 University of Heidelberg The Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC) Heidelberg Germany 3 Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany Corresponding Author: Phillip Knebel phillip.knebel@med.uni-heidelberg.de Oct-Dec 2015 16 11 2015 4 4 e132 21 4 2015 16 7 2015 22 7 2015 24 7 2015 ©Pascal Probst, Sebastian Haller, Colette Dörr-Harim, Thomas Bruckner, Alexis Ulrich, Thilo Hackert, Markus K Diener, Phillip Knebel. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 16.11.2015. 2015

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

The influence of patients’ preoperative nutritional status on their clinical outcome has already been proven. Therefore, patients with malnutrition are in need of additional therapeutic efforts. However, for pancreatic surgery, evidence suggesting the adequacy of existing nutritional assessment scores to estimate malnutrition associated with postoperative outcome is limited.

 Objective

The aim of the observational trial “Nutritional Risk in Major Abdominal Surgery (NURIMAS) Pancreas” is to prospectively assess and analyze different nutritional assessment scores for their prognostic value on postoperative complications in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

 Methods

All patients scheduled to receive elective pancreatic surgery at the University Hospital of Heidelberg will be screened for eligibility. Preoperatively, 12 nutritional assessment scores will be collected and patients will be assigned either at risk or not at risk for malnutrition. The postoperative course will be followed prospectively and complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification will be recorded. The prognostic value for complications will be evaluated for every score in a univariable and multivariable analysis corrected for known risk factors in pancreatic surgery.

 Results

Final data analysis is expected to be available during Spring 2016.

 Conclusions

The NURIMAS Pancreas trial is a monocentric, prospective, observational trial aiming to find the most predictive clinical nutritional assessment score for postoperative complications. Using the results of this protocol as a knowledge base, it is possible to conduct nutritional risk-guided intervention trials to prevent postoperative complications in the pancreatic surgical population.

 Trial Registration

germanctr.de: DRKS00006340; https://drks-neu.uniklinik-freiburg.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00006340 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6bzXWSRYZ)

 Diagnosis Related Group system malnutrition nutritional assessment nutritional score pancreatic surgery Introduction Existing Evidence and Need for a Trial

Malnutrition is estimated as one of the leading causes for loss of health [1]. For hospitalized patients, the direct negative impact of malnutrition has broadly been examined [2-7]. Patients with tumorous diseases as well as patients being treated in intensive care units or in geriatric hospitals are mostly affected by negative impact of malnutrition [8-11].

To detect malnutrition, several scores have been developed. A recently published systematic review with meta-analysis investigated 32 scores with regard to their validity and predictive value for the population of hospitalized patients. The review indicated that only a small portion of scores had been fully validated and in particular, only limited scores are available for surgery. Development of new scores was considered redundant and they were not able to achieve higher sensitivity or specificity. Thus, trials investigating different scores in a specific patient population have been claimed necessary [12].

The population of surgical patients is specifically at high risk for being malnourished [13]. For some surgical indications, malnutrition has been proven as a risk of postoperative complications [14-16]. Regarding pancreatic surgery, limited data are available due to insufficient sample sizes or inhomogeneous populations. For example, the most recent pancreas-specific trial showed a correlation between the nutritional risk index and wound infections in patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy [17]. In addition, in this trial, the small sample size of 64 patients represents the major limitation.

 Aim of the Trial

“Nutritional Risk in Major Abdominal Surgery (NURIMAS) Pancreas” (DRKS00006340) is a monocentric, prospective, observational trial with one study arm. The aim of this trial is to find the best suitable clinical nutritional assessment score to predict postoperative complications in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

 Methods Study Population

The study population will comprise adult patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at the University Hospital of Heidelberg. All underlying diseases leading to a primary pancreatic resection will be included. Thus, the analysis will give information on a broad and representative population as seen in high-volume surgical centers (Textbox 1).

Eligibility criteria.

Inclusion criteria

Age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years

Elective pancreatic surgery

Written informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Any former pancreatic-surgical procedures

Language problems

Inability to understand the trial

 Diagnostic Intervention (Nutritional Assessment Scores)

Based on the most recent systematic review about existing nutritional assessment scores by Van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren [12], 11 scores have been selected that are in use in surgical patient populations [18-27]. Recently, the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) published a new consensus definition of malnutrition, the ESPEN malnutrition criteria [28]. Table 1 presents a summary of the 12 nutritional assessment scores that will be evaluated.

Nutritional assessment scores.

Name Classification for nutritional riska
Nutritional Risk Index [18] Normal/mild/moderate/severe
Nutritional Risk Screening Score and Revised Version [19,26] Low/ moderate/high
Subjective Global Assessment [20] No/ moderate/severe
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool [21] Low/ medium/high
Mini-Nutritional Assessment and Revised Version [22,27] Normal/ at risk/malnourished
Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire [23] Low/ moderate/severe
Imperial Nutritional Screening System I [24] Not at risk/at risk
Imperial Nutritional Screening System II [24] Green/amber/red
Nutritional Risk Classification [25] Low/at risk
ESPEN Malnutrition Criteria [28] Normal/malnourished

aThe highest class for nutritional risk determined by the scores will be used as the study end point “at risk for malnutrition” for statistical evaluation.

 Outcome Measures

The primary end point is postoperative morbidity and mortality. The most suitable score is defined as the score with the highest association of malnutrition and postoperative complication expressed as the highest lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of odds ratio.

Secondary end points are length of hospital stay, length of stay in intensive care unit, comprehensive complication index [29], place of discharge (discharge to home or discharge to rehabilitation or care facility), necessity of postoperative parenteral or enteral nutrition, and impact of malnutrition as diagnosis on hospital costs and Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) case cost.

 Trial Site and Sample Size Calculation

The trial will be conducted at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at the University Hospital of Heidelberg. Prevalence of malnutrition in pancreatic cancer is known to be 88% [30]. We calculated sample size with a lower prevalence of 70% for all pancreatic diseases. With a specificity and sensitivity of 95% and a confidence interval of 0.05, a total of 260 patients will be needed [31]. Patients will be consecutively recruited until the study population will consist of 260 patients with major pancreatic resections (pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatic resection, or total pancreatectomy). Based on the department’s data (about 500 eligible pancreatic resections), recruitment will be completed within 12 months after inclusion of the first patient.

 Planned Study Conduct and Trial Visits

All patients visiting the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery at the University Hospital of Heidelberg and scheduled to receive elective operations will be screened. Eligible patients will be consecutively informed about the study purpose and conduct. After giving a written informed consent, patients will be questioned and examined (Visit 1) according to the investigated nutritional assessment scores (Table 2). Further, other known risk factors for postoperative complications will be noted [32,33]. If the operation is delayed for any reason, patients will be re-evaluated as long as preoperative data from questionnaires are not older than 36 hours at the time of actual operation.

Flowchart of the NURIMAS trial-course of examinations.

Visit 1 2 3 4
  Preoperative POD 3-7 POD 10-14 Discharge or POD 30
Eligibility X
Informed consent X
Baseline data X
Nutritional scores X
Laboratory analyses X x x x
Assessment of surgical procedure x
Assessment of complications x x x
Serious adverse events x x x
Secondary end points   x x x

After the operation, the clinical course will be followed prospectively. Therefore, 3 planned visits will be performed. The first visit will be performed on postoperative days (PODs) 3-7, the second visit on PODs 10-14, and the last visit on the day of discharge or not later than POD 30. During these visits, complications according to Textbox 2 [34-41] will be assessed. Every postoperative complication will be rated according to the validated classification by Clavien-Dindo [42]. Further, on postoperative visits, the status of secondary end points will be evaluated.

Assessed postoperative complications.

• Postoperative pancreatic fistula [34]

• Bile leak [35]

• Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage [36]

• Delayed gastric emptying [37]

• Surgical site infection [38]

• Other infections and sepsis [39]

• Chylous ascites (triglycerides in drainage) [40]

• Serious adverse event [41]

 Data Management and Monitoring

All required information according to this protocol will be recorded on a paper-based case report form. After the last visit, data will be entered in a password-protected and validated relational database (SQL Server 2008 Express). After the last patient’s last visit, database will be soft-locked. A monitoring will be performed on 100% of data necessary to evaluate the primary end point. Of the remaining data, 20% are randomly selected. Finally, the database will be closed and made available for statistical analysis.

 Statistical Analysis

The included scores use different numbers of nutritional risk classes. To compare the scores, evaluation of the primary end point patients will be dichotomized by each nutritional assessment score as “at risk” or “not at risk” using the respective highest nutritional risk determined by each score (Table 1). Further, patients will be dichotomized whether they had at least one major complication (Clavien-Dindo III-V) or not. Hence, for every nutritional assessment score, a contingency table will be created (Figure 1). Positive predictive value, specificity, sensitivity, and c-index will be calculated. Association between every nutritional assessment score and major complication will be expressed as odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Univariable significance of association will be tested with a chi-square test without Yate’s correction at a level of significance of 5%. A multivariable logistic regression model will be used for evaluation of primary end point at a level of significance of 5%. Covariates will be age (years) and operation time (minutes). Factors will be malignancy; gender; laparoscopy; intraoperative radiotherapy; resection of vessels (portal vein, superior mesenteric artery, or vein); inclusion in an interventional trial; American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system; prior upper gastrointestinal surgery; pancreatic surgery associated risks (amylase in drainage >5000 IE/U on POD 1, biliary stent); and preoperative serum albumin level less than 35 g/L. Subgroup analysis will be performed separately for different types of pancreatic resections and different nutritional risk classes will be determined by each score (Table 1).

Secondary end points will be analyzed descriptively by tabulation of the measures of the empirical distributions. According to the level of the variables, means, SDs, medians, 1st and 3rd quartiles, minimum and maximum, or absolute and relative frequencies will be reported, respectively. Descriptive P values of the corresponding statistical tests and associated 95% confidence intervals will be given. Statistical analysis will be performed with program R [43].

Contingency table for calculation of primary study endpoint for the prognostic value of every nutritional assessment score.

 Methods for Minimizing Bias Minimizing Selection Bias

All patients will be consecutively screened and if found to be eligible, informed consent will be obtained in the single-arm study. Number of screened, included, and analyzed patients will be reported and differences will be explained.

 Minimizing Performance and Detection Bias

Preoperative data capturing and outcome assessment will be performed by 2 different investigators. Statistical analysis will be performed after closure of database.

 Minimizing Attrition Bias

Statistical measurements such as imputation will be taken to minimize risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data [44]. The trial will be reported according to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement [45]. The trial is registered with Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00006340). To avoid the risk of selective reporting, the trial protocol with full information about end points and profound explanation of planned statistical analysis is hereby published according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement where appropriate [46]. Report on cost issues and validation of the ESPEN criteria for malnutrition is planned separately.

 Minimizing Other Bias

Any financial relationship or any conflict of interest that could inappropriately influence the work within this project will be stated explicitly. Confounding will be minimized by inclusion of covariates and factors in the statistical analysis of the primary end point as mentioned in the “Statistical Analysis” section.

 Ethics and Informed Consent

The NURIMAS Pancreas trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki in its actual version [47]. According to the professional code for physicians in Germany (§15 BOÄ), the trial protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg.

Before inclusion in the NURIMAS Pancreas trial, patients will be informed both orally and in writing about all relevant aspects of the trial (eg, the aims, methods, the anticipated benefits, potential risks of the study, and the discomfort it may entail). The patients’ free decision to participate will be documented by signature on the informed consent form. All patient-related information is subject to medical confidentiality and to the Federal Data Protection Act. Pseudonymized data transfer will be performed. Third parties will not have any insight into original data.

 Results

Final data analysis is expected to be completed during Spring 2016.

 Discussion

The NURIMAS trial is a monocentric, prospective, observational trial aiming to find the most suitable clinical nutritional assessment score to predict major postoperative complications associated with malnutrition. Thus, an important lack of knowledge in preoperative risk assessment in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery will be worked-off. Upon this knowledge, further trials can rely on a validated nutritional risk and evaluate the benefit of nutritional interventions potentially preventing postoperative complications.

 Abbreviations ASA

American Society of Anaesthesiologists

 DRG

Diagnosis Related Group

 ESPEN

European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism

 IMBI

Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics

 POD

postoperative day

 SAE

serious adverse events

 SDGC

Study Center of the German Surgical Society

 SPIRIT

Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials

 STARD

Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy

This is an investigator-initiated study and PP is the primary investigator. For this study, no additional funding source is available. However, the resources and the facilities available at the University of Heidelberg are availed for conducting the trial. Only the primary investigator has access to the final dataset.

None declared.

 Murray CJ Vos T Lozano R Naghavi M Flaxman AD Michaud C Ezzati M Shibuya K Salomon JA Abdalla S Aboyans V Abraham J Ackerman I Aggarwal R Ahn SY Ali MK Alvarado M Anderson HR Anderson LM Andrews KG Atkinson C Baddour LM Bahalim AN Barker-Collo S Barrero LH Bartels DH Basáñez M Baxter A Bell ML Benjamin EJ Bennett D Bernabé E Bhalla K Bhandari B Bikbov B Bin AA Birbeck G Black JA Blencowe H Blore JD Blyth F Bolliger I Bonaventure A Boufous S Bourne R Boussinesq M Braithwaite T Brayne C Bridgett L Brooker S Brooks P Brugha TS Bryan-Hancock C Bucello C Buchbinder R Buckle G Budke CM Burch M Burney P Burstein R Calabria B Campbell B Canter CE Carabin H Carapetis J Carmona L Cella C Charlson F Chen H Cheng AT Chou D Chugh SS Coffeng LE Colan SD Colquhoun S Colson KE Condon J Connor MD Cooper LT Corriere M Cortinovis M de Vaccaro Karen Courville Couser W Cowie BC Criqui MH Cross M Dabhadkar KC Dahiya M Dahodwala N Damsere-Derry J Danaei G Davis A De LD Degenhardt L Dellavalle R Delossantos A Denenberg J Derrett S Des Jarlais Don C Dharmaratne SD Dherani M Diaz-Torne C Dolk H Dorsey ER Driscoll T Duber H Ebel B Edmond K Elbaz A Ali SE Erskine H Erwin PJ Espindola P Ewoigbokhan SE Farzadfar F Feigin V Felson DT Ferrari A Ferri CP Fèvre EM Finucane MM Flaxman S Flood L Foreman K Forouzanfar MH Fowkes Francis Gerry R Fransen M Freeman MK Gabbe BJ Gabriel SE Gakidou E Ganatra HA Garcia B Gaspari F Gillum RF Gmel G Gonzalez-Medina D Gosselin R Grainger R Grant B Groeger J Guillemin F Gunnell D Gupta R Haagsma J Hagan H Halasa YA Hall W Haring D Haro JM Harrison JE Havmoeller R Hay RJ Higashi H Hill C Hoen B Hoffman H Hotez PJ Hoy D Huang JJ Ibeanusi SE Jacobsen KH James SL Jarvis D Jasrasaria R Jayaraman S Johns N Jonas JB Karthikeyan G Kassebaum N Kawakami N Keren A Khoo J King CH Knowlton LM Kobusingye O Koranteng A Krishnamurthi R Laden F Lalloo R Laslett LL Lathlean T Leasher JL Lee YY Leigh J Levinson D Lim SS Limb E Lin JK Lipnick M Lipshultz SE Liu W Loane M Ohno SL Lyons R Mabweijano J MacIntyre MF Malekzadeh R Mallinger L Manivannan S Marcenes W March L Margolis DJ Marks GB Marks R Matsumori A Matzopoulos R Mayosi BM McAnulty JH McDermott MM McGill N McGrath J Medina-Mora ME Meltzer M Mensah GA Merriman TR Meyer A Miglioli V Miller M Miller TR Mitchell PB Mock C Mocumbi AO Moffitt TE Mokdad AA Monasta L Montico M Moradi-Lakeh M Moran A Morawska L Mori R Murdoch ME Mwaniki MK Naidoo K Nair MN Naldi L Narayan K M Venkat Nelson PK Nelson RG Nevitt MC Newton CR Nolte S Norman P Norman R O'Donnell M O'Hanlon S Olives C Omer SB Ortblad K Osborne R Ozgediz D Page A Pahari B Pandian JD Rivero AP Patten SB Pearce N Padilla RP Perez-Ruiz F Perico N Pesudovs K Phillips D Phillips MR Pierce K Pion S Polanczyk GV Polinder S Pope CA Popova S Porrini E Pourmalek F Prince M Pullan RL Ramaiah KD Ranganathan D Razavi H Regan M Rehm JT Rein DB Remuzzi G Richardson K Rivara FP Roberts T Robinson C De Leòn Felipe Rodriguez Ronfani L Room R Rosenfeld LC Rushton L Sacco RL Saha S Sampson U Sanchez-Riera L Sanman E Schwebel DC Scott JG Segui-Gomez M Shahraz S Shepard DS Shin H Shivakoti R Singh D Singh GM Singh JA Singleton J Sleet DA Sliwa K Smith E Smith JL Stapelberg Nicolas J C Steer A Steiner T Stolk WA Stovner LJ Sudfeld C Syed S Tamburlini G Tavakkoli M Taylor HR Taylor JA Taylor WJ Thomas B Thomson WM Thurston GD Tleyjeh IM Tonelli M Towbin JA Truelsen T Tsilimbaris MK Ubeda C Undurraga EA van der Werf Marieke J van OJ Vavilala MS Venketasubramanian N Wang M Wang W Watt K Weatherall DJ Weinstock MA Weintraub R Weisskopf MG Weissman MM White RA Whiteford H Wiebe N Wiersma ST Wilkinson JD Williams HC Williams Sean R M Witt E Wolfe F Woolf AD Wulf S Yeh P Zaidi Anita K M Zheng Z Zonies D Lopez AD AlMazroa MA Memish ZA Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 Lancet 2012 12 15 380 9859 2197 2223 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4 23245608 S0140-6736(12)61689-4 Bistrian BR Blackburn GL Vitale J Cochran D Naylor J Prevalence of malnutrition in general medical patients JAMA 1976 04 12 235 15 1567 1570 814258 Bistrian BR Blackburn GL Hallowell E Heddle R Protein status of general surgical patients JAMA 1974 11 11 230 6 858 860 4213823 Pirlich M Luhrmann N Schütz T Mangelernährung bei Klinikpatienten: Diagnostik und klinische Bedeutung Akt Ernähr-Med 1999 24 260 266 Gariballa SE Parker SG Taub N Castleden CM Influence of nutritional status on clinical outcome after acute stroke Am J Clin Nutr 1998 08 68 2 275 281 9701183 Kyle UG Pirlich M Schuetz T Luebke HJ Lochs H Pichard C Prevalence of malnutrition in 1760 patients at hospital admission: A controlled population study of body composition Clin Nutr 2003 10 22 5 473 481 14512035 S0261561403000499 Andreyev HJ Norman AR Oates J Cunningham D Why do patients with weight loss have a worse outcome when undergoing chemotherapy for gastrointestinal malignancies? Eur J Cancer 1998 03 34 4 503 509 9713300 S0959804997100909 Nixon DW Heymsfield SB Cohen AE Kutner MH Ansley J Lawson DH Rudman D Protein-calorie undernutrition in hospitalized cancer patients Am J Med 1980 05 68 5 683 690 6769330 Aviles A Yañez J López T García EL Guzmán R Díaz-Maqueo JC Malnutrition as an adverse prognostic factor in patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma Arch Med Res 1995 26 1 31 34 7711444 Giner M Laviano A Meguid MM Gleason JR In 1995 a correlation between malnutrition and poor outcome in critically ill patients still exists Nutrition 1996 01 12 1 23 29 8838832 0899900795000151 Bruun LI Bosaeus I Bergstad I Nygaard K Prevalence of malnutrition in surgical patients: Evaluation of nutritional support and documentation Clin Nutr 1999 06 18 3 141 147 10.1054/clnu.1999.0006 10451474 clnu.1999.0006 van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren Marian AE Guaitoli PR Jansma EP de Vet Henrica CW Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting Clin Nutr 2014 02 33 1 39 58 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.04.008 23688831 S0261-5614(13)00108-8 Sungurtekin H Sungurtekin U Balci C Zencir M Erdem E The influence of nutritional status on complications after major intraabdominal surgery J Am Coll Nutr 2004 06 23 3 227 232 15190047 Kuzu MA Terzioğlu H Genç V Erkek AB Ozban M Sonyürek P Elhan AH Torun N Preoperative nutritional risk assessment in predicting postoperative outcome in patients undergoing major surgery World J Surg 2006 03 30 3 378 390 10.1007/s00268-005-0163-1 16479353 Schiesser M Müller S Kirchhoff P Breitenstein S Schäfer M Clavien P Assessment of a novel screening score for nutritional risk in predicting complications in gastro-intestinal surgery Clin Nutr 2008 08 27 4 565 570 10.1016/j.clnu.2008.01.010 18342995 S0261-5614(08)00029-0 Schiesser M Kirchhoff P Müller MK Schäfer M Clavien P The correlation of nutrition risk index, nutrition risk score, and bioimpedance analysis with postoperative complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery Surgery 2009 05 145 5 519 526 10.1016/j.surg.2009.02.001 19375611 S0039-6060(09)00078-6 Shinkawa H Takemura S Uenishi T Sakae M Ohata K Urata Y Kaneda K Nozawa A Kubo S Nutritional risk index as an independent predictive factor for the development of surgical site infection after pancreaticoduodenectomy Surg Today 2013 03 43 3 276 283 10.1007/s00595-012-0350-2 23052741 The Veterans Affairs Total Parenteral Nutrition Cooperative Study Group Perioperative total parenteral nutrition in surgical patients N Engl J Med 1991 08 22 325 8 525 532 10.1056/NEJM199108223250801 1906987 Reilly HM Martineau JK Moran A Kennedy H Nutritional screening: Evaluation and implementation of a simple Nutrition Risk Score Clin Nutr 1995 10 14 5 269 273 16843942 S0261-5614(95)80063-8 Detsky AS McLaughlin JR Baker JP Johnston N Whittaker S Mendelson RA Jeejeebhoy KN What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status? 1987. Classical article Nutr Hosp 2008 23 4 400 407 18702178 Elia M Screening for malnutrition: A multidisciplinary responsibility. Development and use of the ‘Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults 2003 2015-10-11 Redditch, Worcestershire Malnutrition Advisory Group, a Standing Committee of BAPEN http://www.bapen.org.uk/pdfs/must/must_exec_sum.pdf 6cCedQeUf Guigoz Y Vellas B Garry P Mini Nutritional Assessment: A practical assessment tool for grading the nutritional state of elderly patients Facts and Research in Gerontology (Nutrition) 1994 4 Suppl 2 15 59 Kruizenga HM Seidell JC de Vet HC Wierdsma NJ van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren MA Development and validation of a hospital screening tool for malnutrition: The Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ) Clin Nutr 2005 02 24 1 75 82 10.1016/j.clnu.2004.07.015 15681104 S0261-5614(04)00124-4 Tammam JD Gardner L Hickson M Validity, reliability and acceptability of the Imperial Nutritional Screening System (INSYST): A tool that does not require the body mass index J Hum Nutr Diet 2009 12 22 6 536 544 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.01004.x 20002950 JHN1004 Kovacevich DS Boney AR Braunschweig CL Perez A Stevens M Nutrition risk classification: A reproducible and valid tool for nurses Nutr Clin Pract 1997 02 12 1 20 25 9197791 Kondrup J Allison SP Elia M Vellas B Plauth M Educational Clinical Practice Committee‚ European Society of Parenteral Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002 Clin Nutr 2003 08 22 4 415 421 12880610 S0261561403000980 Rubenstein LZ Harker JO Salvà A Guigoz Y Vellas B Screening for undernutrition in geriatric practice: Developing the Short-Form Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF) J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001 06 56 6 M366 M372 11382797 Cederholm T Bosaeus I Barazzoni R Bauer J Van GA Klek S Muscaritoli M Nyulasi I Ockenga J Schneider SM de van der Schueren M A E Singer P Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition: An ESPEN Consensus Statement Clin Nutr 2015 06 34 3 335 340 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.03.001 25799486 S0261-5614(15)00075-8 Slankamenac K Nederlof N Pessaux P de JJ Wijnhoven BP Breitenstein S Oberkofler CE Graf R Puhan MA Clavien P The comprehensive complication index: A novel and more sensitive endpoint for assessing outcome and reducing sample size in randomized controlled trials Ann Surg 2014 11 260 5 757 762 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000948 25379846 00000658-201411000-00006 La TM Ziparo V Nigri G Cavallini M Balducci G Ramacciato G Malnutrition and pancreatic surgery: Prevalence and outcomes J Surg Oncol 2013 06 107 7 702 708 10.1002/jso.23304 23280557 Carley S Dosman S Jones SR Harrison M Simple nomograms to calculate sample size in diagnostic studies Emerg Med J 2005 03 22 3 180 181 10.1136/emj.2003.011148 15735264 22/3/180 PMC1726700 Callery MP Pratt WB Kent TS Chaikof EL Vollmer CM A prospectively validated clinical risk score accurately predicts pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy J Am Coll Surg 2013 01 216 1 1 14 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.002 23122535 S1072-7515(12)01135-0 Kawai M Kondo S Yamaue H Wada K Sano K Motoi F Unno M Satoi S Kwon A Hatori T Yamamoto M Matsumoto J Murakami Y Doi R Ito M Miyakawa S Shinchi H Natsugoe S Nakagawara H Ohta T Takada T Predictive risk factors for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula analyzed in 1,239 patients with pancreaticoduodenectomy: multicenter data collection as a project study of pancreatic surgery by the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2011 07 18 4 601 608 10.1007/s00534-011-0373-x 21491103 Bassi C Dervenis C Butturini G Fingerhut A Yeo C Izbicki J Neoptolemos J Sarr M Traverso W Buchler M International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an International Study Group (ISGPF) definition Surgery 2005 07 138 1 8 13 10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001 16003309 S0039606005002291 Koch M Garden OJ Padbury R Rahbari NN Adam R Capussotti L Fan ST Yokoyama Y Crawford M Makuuchi M Christophi C Banting S Brooke-Smith M Usatoff V Nagino M Maddern G Hugh TJ Vauthey J Greig P Rees M Nimura Y Figueras J DeMatteo RP Büchler MW Weitz J Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: A definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery Surgery 2011 05 149 5 680 688 10.1016/j.surg.2010.12.002 21316725 S0039-6060(10)00678-1 Wente MN Veit JA Bassi C Dervenis C Fingerhut A Gouma DJ Izbicki JR Neoptolemos JP Padbury RT Sarr MG Yeo CJ Büchler MW Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): An International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition Surgery 2007 07 142 1 20 25 10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.001 17629996 S0039-6060(07)00105-5 Wente MN Bassi C Dervenis C Fingerhut A Gouma DJ Izbicki JR Neoptolemos JP Padbury RT Sarr MG Traverso LW Yeo CJ Büchler MW Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: A suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Surgery 2007 11 142 5 761 768 10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.005 17981197 S0039-6060(07)00301-7 Horan TC Gaynes RP Martone WJ Jarvis WR Emori TG CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: A modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992 10 13 10 606 608 1334988 Dellinger RP Levy MM Rhodes A Annane D Gerlach H Opal SM Sevransky JE Sprung CL Douglas IS Jaeschke R Osborn TM Nunnally ME Townsend SR Reinhart K Kleinpell RM Angus DC Deutschman CS Machado FR Rubenfeld GD Webb S Beale RJ Vincent J Moreno R Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including The Pediatric Subgroup Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012 Intensive Care Med 2013 02 39 2 165 228 10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8 23361625 van der Gaag NA Verhaar AC Haverkort EB Busch OR van Gulik TM Gouma DJ Chylous ascites after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Introduction of a grading system J Am Coll Surg 2008 11 207 5 751 757 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.07.007 18954789 S1072-7515(08)01004-1 ICH Guideline for GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE E6(R1) 1996 2015-07-22 http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R1_Guideline.pdf 6aC8NwYrh Dindo D Demartines N Clavien P Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey Ann Surg 2004 08 240 2 205 213 15273542 00000658-200408000-00003 PMC1360123 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2013 2015-07-21 Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.r-project.org/ 6aC94ka2x Schafer JL Multiple imputation: A primer Stat Methods Med Res 1999 03 8 1 3 15 10347857 Bossuyt PM Reitsma JB Bruns DE Gatsonis CA Glasziou PP Irwig LM Lijmer JG Moher D Rennie D de Vet Henrica CW Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative Ann Intern Med 2003 01 7 138 1 40 44 12513043 200301070-00010 Chan A Tetzlaff JM Altman DG Laupacis A Gøtzsche PC Krleža-Jerić K Hróbjartsson A Mann H Dickersin K Berlin JA Doré CJ Parulekar WR Summerskill William S M Groves T Schulz KF Sox HC Rockhold FW Rennie D Moher D SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials Ann Intern Med 2013 02 5 158 3 200 207 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 23295957 1556168 World Medical Association World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects JAMA 2013 11 27 310 20 2191 2194 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 24141714 1760318