Bariatric surgery volume by hospital and long-term survival: population-based NordOSCo data

Global barriers to decision makers for prioritizing interventions for obesity

The treatment of obesity remains underprioritized. New pharmacologic options for the treatment of obesity have shown effectiveness and safety but are not widely reimbursed. Despite the unmet need and the existence of effective prevention and treatment strategies, substantial barriers exist to effectively address obesity as a disease. The purpose of this scoping review was to investigate the barriers for decision makers in prioritizing interventions for obesity and to seek out interconnection between barriers to prevention and treatment. A scoping review was conducted using a systematic search of both scientific databases and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases. Studies that addressed barriers to reimbursement or prioritization of obesity treatment and prevention were included. A total of 26 articles and 14 HTAs were included. Four main barriers for decision makers to prioritize new interventions for obesity were identified: perceptions, knowledge, economics, and politics. There was a high degree of interconnectedness among barriers, as well as large overlaps between barriers in relation to bariatric surgery, pharmacologic treatments, and prevention regulation. Multiple barriers exist that impact decision makers in prioritizing interventions for treating obesity. A strong interconnectedness of the barriers was found, indicating a systems approach to improve global prioritization to address the disease. This study suggests that decision makers should carefully consider all main barriers when addressing the obesity epidemic.

Evaluating the Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols on Surgical Outcomes Following Bariatric Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes are evidence-based care improvement processes for surgical patients, which are designed to decrease the impact the anticipated negative physiological cascades following surgery.

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of ERAS protocols on outcomes following bariatric surgery compared to standard care (SC).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4 RESULTS: Six RCTs including 740 patients were included. The mean age was 40.2 years, and mean body mass index was 44.1 kg/m2. Overall, 54.1% underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (400/740) and 45.9% sleeve gastrectomy (340/700). Overall, patients randomised to ERAS programmes had a significant reduction in nausea and vomiting (odds ratio (OR): 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.95, P = 0.040), intraoperative time (mean difference (MD): 5.40, 95% CI: 3.05-7.77, P < 0.001), time to mobilisation (MD: - 7.78, 95% CI: - 5.46 to - 2.10, P < 0.001), intensive care unit stay (ICUS) (MD: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.13-1.27, P = 0.020), total hospital stay (THS) (MD: - 0.42, 95% CI: - 0.69 to - 0.16, P = 0.002), and functional hospital stay (FHS) (MD: - 0.60, 95% CI: - 0.98 to - 0.22, P = 0.002) compared to those who received SC.

CONCLUSION

ERAS programmes reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting, intraoperative time, time to mobilisation, ICUS, THS, and FHS compared to those who received SC. Accordingly, ERAS should be implemented, where feasible, for patients indicated to undergo bariatric surgery. Trial registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO - CRD42023434492.

The impact of hospital experience in bariatric surgery on short-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a technically challenging procedure with a substantial learning curve. Composite volume of upper gastrointestinal (upper GI) procedures for cancer has been previously linked to postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to investigate an association between hospital experience in bariatric surgery and short-term outcomes in MIE.

METHOD

Data on esophagectomy patients between 2016 and 2020 were collected from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit, a mandatory nationwide registry. Hospitals were categorized as bariatric or non-bariatric. Multivariable logistic regression investigated short-term postoperative outcomes, adjusting for case mix.

RESULTS

Of 3371 patients undergoing esophagectomy in sixteen hospitals, 2450 (72.7%) underwent MIE. Bariatric hospitals (N = 6) accounted for 1057 (43.1%) MIE. Annual volume of bariatric procedures was median 523 and esophagectomies 42. In non-bariatric hospitals, volume of esophagectomies was median 52 (P = 0.145). Overall postoperative complication rate was lower in bariatric hospitals (59.2% vs. 65.9%, P < 0.001). Bariatric hospitals were associated with a reduced risk of overall complications (aOR 0.76 [95% CI 0.62-0.92]), length of hospital (aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.65-0.95]), and ICU stay (aOR 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]) after MIE. Surgical radicality (R0) did not differ. Lymph node yield (≥ 15) was lower in bariatric hospitals (90.0% vs. 94.7%, P < 0.001). Over the years, several short-term outcomes improved in bariatric hospitals compared to non-bariatric hospitals.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide analysis, there was an association between bariatric hospitals and improved short-term outcomes after MIE. Characteristics of bariatric hospitals that could explain this phenomenon and whether this translates to other upper GI procedures may be warranted to identify.