Surgeon factors are strongly correlated with who receives a sleeve gastrectomy versus a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Analyzing the Social Vulnerability Index With Metabolic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The social vulnerability index (SVI) is a census tract-level population-based measure generated from 16 socioeconomic and demographic variables on a scale from 1 (least) to 100 (most) vulnerable. This study has three objectives as follows: 1) to analyze multiple ways of utilizing SVI, 2) compare SVI as a group measure of marginalization to individual markers, and 3) to understand how SVI is associated with choice of surgery in metabolic surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified adults undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and gastric sleeve in 2013-2018 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from a single academic center. High SVI was defined as >75th percentile. Low SVI was coded as <75th percentile in measure 1 and < 25th percentile in measure 2. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were utilized for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Multivariable regression models were performed comparing SVI to marginalized status as a predictor for type of metabolic surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 436 patients undergoing metabolic surgery, with a low overall morbidity (6.1%). Complication and readmission rates were similar across comparator groups. The logistic regression models had similar area under the curve, supporting SVI as a proxy for individual measures of marginalization.

CONCLUSIONS

SVI performed as well as marginalized status in predicting preoperative risk. This suggests the validity of using SVI to identify high risk patients. By providing a single, quantitative score encompassing many social determinants of health, SVI is a useful tool in identifying patients facing the greatest health disparities.

Obesity treatment in adolescents and adults in the era of personalized medicine

In this multi-professional review, we will provide the in-depth knowledge required to work in the expanding field of obesity treatment. The prevalence of obesity has doubled in adults and quadrupled in children over the last three decades. The most common treatment offered has been lifestyle treatment, which has a modest or little long-term effect. Recently, several new treatment options-leading to improved weight loss-have become available. However, long-term care is not only about weight loss but also aims to improve health and wellbeing overall. In the era of personalized medicine, we have an obligation to tailor the treatment in close dialogue with our patients. The main focus of this review is new pharmacological treatments and modern metabolic surgery, with practical guidance on what to consider when selecting and guiding the patients and what to include in the follow-up care. Furthermore, we discuss common clinical challenges, such as patients with concurrent eating disorder or mental health problems, and treatment in the older adults. We also provide recommendations on how to deal with obesity in a non-stigmatizing way to diminish weight stigma during treatment. Finally, we present six microcases-obesity treatment for persons with neuropsychiatric disorders and/or intellectual disability; obesity treatment in the nonresponsive patient who has "tried everything"; and hypoglycemia, abdominal pain, and weight regain after metabolic surgery-to highlight common problems in weight-loss treatment and provide personalized treatment suggestions.

Identifying barriers to shared decision-making about bariatric surgery in two large health systems

OBJECTIVE

Prior research suggests shared decision-making (SDM) could improve patient and health care provider communication about bariatric surgery. The aim of this work was to identify and prioritize barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery to help guide implementation of SDM.

METHODS

Two large US health care systems formed multidisciplinary teams to facilitate the implementation of SDM around bariatric surgery. The teams used a nominal group process approach involving (1) generation of multilevel barriers, (2) round-robin recording of barriers, (3) facilitated discussion, and (4) selection and ranking of barriers according to importance and feasibility to address.

RESULTS

One health system identified 13 barriers and prioritized 5 as the most important and feasible to address. The second health system identified 14 barriers and prioritized 6. Both health systems commonly prioritized six barriers: lack of insurance coverage; lack of understanding of insurance coverage; lack of organizational prioritization of SDM; lack of knowledge about bariatric surgery; lack of interdepartmental clarity between primary and specialty care; and limited training on SDM conversations and tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Health systems face numerous barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery, and these can be easily identified and prioritized by multistakeholder teams. Future research should seek to identify effective strategies to address these common barriers.

Patient perspectives on the usefulness of the MBSAQIP Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator uses procedure-specific prediction models to generate individualized surgical risk/outcome estimates. This tool helps guide informed consent and operative selection. We hypothesized that calculator use would influence patient procedure choice.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient perspectives on the bariatric surgical calculator.

SETTING

A randomized controlled trial at an MBSAQIP-accredited center.

METHODS

During the preoperative bariatric surgical office consultation, patients were randomized into 2 groups: the control group received conventional surgeon-led counseling, whereas surgeons used the risk/benefit calculator to guide decision making for the calculator group. Surveys were completed by patients following consultations to evaluate satisfaction and perceived impact of the risk/benefit calculator on operative selection.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2022, 61 patients were randomized to the calculator group and 68 patients to the control group. The percentage of patients whose procedure of choice changed following consultation was similar in the calculator versus control group (44.3% versus 41.2%; P = .723). However, calculator group patients were less likely to perceive surgeon counseling as very important for their decision making (43.3% versus 76.5%; P < .001). Eighty-five percent of calculator group patients rated the calculator as useful or very useful, and only 1.7% found it not very important. The reasons patients changed procedure choice were similar between the groups (P = .091); the most common cause was to improve their anticipated outcome (48.7% versus 54.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

While the risk/benefit calculator was perceived as a helpful tool by most patients, its use did not influence their procedure choice. However, the patient-reported usefulness and importance of the calculator during surgeon counseling suggest that the information provided has weight in patient decision making.

Demographic factors as determinant of selection of sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass for surgical weight loss

INTRODUCTION

Use of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for weight loss has grown exponentially; however, clear indications for SG versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RNYGB) are lacking. Certain populations may be more likely to undergo SG due to its simpler technique and without clear clinical indications. We aim to examine underlying predictors of patients undergoing SG vs RNY across a single state.

METHODS

We queried the Colorado All Payers Claim Database for patients undergoing laparoscopic SG or RNY. Patient-level variables included patient demographics, comorbidities, distance traveled for surgery, and distressed communities index (DCI), a zip code-based measure of socioeconomic status. Hospital-level variables included annual bariatric surgery volume, academic status, and whether hospitals were a bariatric Center of Excellence. We performed mixed-effects logistic regression adjusting for demographics, insurance coverage, and comorbidities to compare odds of undergoing SG vs RNY, with a random effect for hospital.

RESULTS

5,017 patients were included with 3,042 (60.6%) undergoing SG and 1,975 (39.4%) undergoing RNY. On multivariable analysis, patients with a high DCI were not more likely to undergo a SG (OR 1.18, CI 0.89-1.55, p = 0.25). However, patients who underwent surgery at hospitals serving the greatest proportion of those from highly distressed communities were significantly more likely to undergo SG (OR 4.22, CI 1.38-12.96, p = 0.01). Patients managed at Bariatric Centers of Excellence were less likely to undergo SG (OR 0.22, CI 0.07-0.62, p = 0.005). Patients with higher BMI, diabetes, or GERD were all more likely to undergo RNY.

CONCLUSION

While patients with high DCI were more likely to undergo SG on univariate analysis, these associations disappeared after addition of a hospital-level random effect, suggesting that disparities may be due access to surgeons or systems with preference for one procedure. However, hospitals serving a higher proportion of high-DCI patients are more likely to utilize SG.

Hospital Variation in Preference for a Specific Bariatric Procedure and the Association with Weight Loss Performance: a Nationwide Analysis

PURPOSE

Hospitals performing a certain bariatric procedure in high volumes may have better outcomes. However, they could also have worse outcomes for some patients who are better off receiving another procedure. This study evaluates the effect of hospital preference for a specific type of bariatric procedure on their overall weight loss results.

METHODS

All hospitals performing bariatric surgery were included from the nationwide Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. For each hospital, the expected (E) numbers of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) were calculated given their patient-mix. These were compared with the observed (O) numbers as the O/E ratio in a funnel plot. The 95% control intervals were used to identify outlier hospitals performing a certain procedure significantly more often than expected given their patient-mix (defined as hospital preference for that procedure). Similarly, funnel plots were created for the outcome of patients achieving ≥ 25% total weight loss (TWL) after 2 years, which was linked to each hospital's preference.

RESULTS

A total of 34,558 patients were included, with 23,154 patients completing a 2-year follow-up, of whom 79.6% achieved ≥ 25%TWL. Nine hospitals had a preference for RYGB (range O/E ratio [1.09-1.53]), with 1 having significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.06]). Of 6 hospitals with a preference for SG (range O/E ratio [1.10-2.71]), one hospital had significantly fewer patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [0.90]), and from two hospitals with a preference for OAGB (range O/E ratio [4.0-6.0]), one had significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.07]). One hospital had no preference for any procedure but did have significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.10]).

CONCLUSION

Hospital preference is not consistently associated with better overall weight loss results. This suggests that even though experience with a procedure may be slightly less in hospitals not having a preference, it is still sufficient to achieve similar weight loss outcomes when surgery is provided in centralized high-volume bariatric institutions.

Metabolic effects of bariatric surgery on patients with type 2 diabetes: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery among patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) can induce complete remission. However, it remains unclear whether sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has better T2D remission within a population-based daily practice.

OBJECTIVES

To compare patients undergoing RYGB and SG on the extent of T2D remission at the 1-year follow-up.

SETTING

Nationwide, population-based study including all 18 hospitals in the Netherlands providing metabolic and bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing RYGB and SG between October 2015 and October 2018 with 1 year of complete follow-up data were selected from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity (DATO). The primary outcome is T2D remission within 1 year. Secondary outcomes include ≥20% total weight loss (TWL), obesity-related co-morbidity reduction, and postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥III within 30 days. We compared T2D remission between RYGB and SG groups using propensity score matching to adjust for confounding by indication.

RESULTS

A total of 5015 patients were identified from the DATO, and 4132 (82.4%) had completed a 1-year follow-up visit. There were 3350 (66.8%) patients with a valid T2D status who were included in the analysis (RYGB = 2623; SG = 727). RYGB patients had a lower body mass index than SG patients, but were more often female, with higher gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyslipidemia rates. After adjusting for these confounders, RYGB patients had increased odds of achieving T2D remission (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.1; P < .01). Groups were balanced after matching 695 patients in each group. After matching, RYGB patients still had better odds of T2D remission (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.27-2.88; P < .01). Also, significantly more RYGB patients had ≥20%TWL (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.96-3.75; P < .01) and RYGB patients had higher dyslipidemia remission rates (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.39-2.76; P < .01). There were no significant differences in CD ≥III complications.

CONCLUSION

Using population-based data from the Netherlands, this study shows that RYGB leads to better T2D remission rates at the 1-year follow-up and better metabolic outcomes for patients with obesity and T2D undergoing bariatric surgery in daily practice.

Sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass: a "post-code" lottery? A comprehensive national analysis of the utilization of bariatric surgery in Switzerland between 2011-2017

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) recently became the most frequently performed bariatric surgery (BS) worldwide, overtaking the long-time standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Main indications for one or the other procedure show large inter-center variations and warrant further investigations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify the influencers of primary BS selection in Switzerland.

SETTING

Switzerland.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all hospitalizations in Switzerland January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2017 with anonymized data provided by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office. BS procedures were identified based on ICD-10 and national surgical codes. Statistical analyses were performed with R.

RESULTS

During the study period 27,375 BS were performed. The annual BS caseload doubled over time, whereas inpatient complications decreased (∼-33%). RYGB was the prevailing procedure, although its annual proportion decreased from 80% to 70% over 7 years. Meanwhile, use of SG increased from 14% to 23%. Primary RYGB and SG had similar rates of inpatient mortality (∼.05%) and morbidity (8.0 versus 7.4%, P =.148), with the exception of higher ileus rates following RYGB (.7 versus .1%, P < .001). Patient-related factors favoring the indication of SG were male sex, extremes of age, and metabolic co-morbidities , while gastroesophageal reflux disease and private insurance-favored RYGB. Strikingly, differences between geographic regions outweighed patient-related factors in procedure selection: inhabitants of German- and Italian-speaking areas had higher likelihood (OR 4.6; 3.9, P < .001) to receive SG than those in French-speaking areas.

CONCLUSION

Geographic differences in primary BS procedure selection indicate a lack of objective rationales. Long-term risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to assist evidence-based decision making.

Factors influencing the choice between laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) continues to be the most commonly performed bariatric operation, several variables influence surgeons' practice patterns and patients' decision-making in the type of bariatric procedure to perform. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient factors that influence the decision between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) versus LSG.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was queried for patients undergoing LSG and LRYGB between 2015 and 2017. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to evaluate factors associated with performing LRYGB compared to LSG.

RESULTS

A total of 252,117 (72.3%) LSG and 96,677 (27.7%) LRYGB cases were identified. Patients undergoing LSG were younger (44.3 ± 12.0 vs 45.2 ± 11.8 years; p < 0.01) and had a lower body mass index (BMI; 45.1 ± 7.8 vs 46.2 ± 8.1 kg/m²; p < 0.01). Most of the patients were females (79.4%), white (73.0%), with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class ≤ 3 (96.4%). The factors associated with undergoing LRYGB compared to LSG were diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux disease, BMI ≥ 50 kg/m², ASA class > 3, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. However, patients with kidney disease, black race, chronic steroid use, age ≥ 60 years, recent smoking history, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and coronary artery disease were more likely to undergo LSG.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to perform LRYGB is primarily driven by obesity-associated comorbidities and higher BMI, whereas LSG is more likely to be performed in higher risk patients.

Performance and improvement of the DiaRem score in diabetes remission prediction: a study with diverse procedure types

BACKGROUND

The DiaRem score has proven to be a reliable predictor tool for diabetes remission in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), as well as laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). To our knowledge there are no studies that analyze DiaRem in patients undergoing biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS).

OBJECTIVE

To test the validity of the DiaRem score as a predictor of type 2 diabetes remission at 1 year post surgery in patients who underwent LABG, LSG, RYGB, and BPD/DS, as well as to develop and test a novel model that uses DiaRem to predict type 2 diabetes remission by procedure type (LABG, LSG, RYGB, and BPD/DS).

SETTING

University Medical Center, United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review of institutional records identified patients who underwent primary bariatric procedures (LAGB, LSG, RYGB, and BPD/DS) between January 1, 2000 to April 10, 2017, had a diagnosis of diabetes and had complete preoperative and 1-year postoperative follow-up information. A univariable logistic regression model was fit to assess the association between DiaRem score and diabetes remission. A multivariable logistic regression model was created, including procedure type and other preoperative characteristics. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) was calculated to analyze the performance of both models for the entire cohort as well as a BPD/DS only subgroup.

RESULTS

A total study cohort of 602 was obtained. The majority of patients underwent RYGB (456; 75.7%), followed by LSG (84; 14.0%), BPD/DS (35; 5.8%), and LAGB (27; 4.5%). The multivariable regression model with RYGB as the reference procedure, showed that BPD/DS results in higher odds of type 2 diabetes remission at 1 year post surgery (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27, 8.51), while LSG (adjusted OR .52, 95%CI .29, .93) and LAGB resulted in lower odds (adjusted OR.23, 95% CI.09,.60). The univariable DiaRem model and the novel model were determined to be moderately strong in classifying diabetes remission in the entire cohort (AUROC: .79, 95% CI: .75, .83 and .82, 95% CI: .79, .85, respectively) as well as in the BPD/DS sub-group (AUROC: .85, 95% CI: .70, .99 and .84, 95% CI .69, .99, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the DiaRem score is a reliable tool to predict diabetes remission, amongst a wide variety of different procedures as well as specifically those receiving BPD/DS. Our novel model, which takes into account procedure type, not only shows that BPD/DS patients have the highest odds of diabetes remission than other procedures, but also that this model performs significantly better at predicting diabetes remission than DiaRem alone.