Beyond race: social vulnerability and access to metabolic and bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is under-accessed by non-White patients, who are disproportionately affected by obesity. We hypothesized that unique barriers experienced by socially vulnerable patients drive disparate MBS utilization.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether socially vulnerable patients experience greater attrition and face more insurance-mandated medical weight management (MWM) requirements.

SETTING

Urban, academic center.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults evaluated for MBS in 2018. Social vulnerability was determined using the 2018 Social Vulnerability Index. Outcomes included attrition, or failure to undergo surgery within 1year, and the number and duration of MWM requirements. Multivariable logistic regression and negative binomial regression tested these associations.

RESULTS

In 2018, 339 patients were evaluated for MBS (83% female, 70% Black). The attrition rate was 57%. On adjusted analyses, patients in the highest social vulnerability quartile had double the odds of attrition compared to their least vulnerable counterparts (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.11-4.92, P = .03). Highly vulnerable patients had double the number (IRR 2.29, 95% CI 1.42-3.72, P = .001) and nearly quadruple the duration (IRR 3.90, 95% CI 1.93-7.86, P < .001) of MWM requirements compared to those with low social vulnerability. Odds of attrition increased by 11% and 20% for each additional MWM visit (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, P = .02) and month (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08-1.33, P = .001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high social vulnerability were less likely to undergo MBS and faced more insurance-mandated preoperative requirements, which independently predicted attrition. Insurance-mandated MWM is inequitable and may contribute to disparate care of patients with severe obesity.

Addressing uncertainty about the role of structured lifestyle modification for metabolic surgery patients

There is good evidence that structured lifestyle modification programmes improve health in patients with metabolic and cardiovascular disorders, but there is no specific evidence that they improve outcomes in patients undergoing metabolic or obesity surgery. Despite expert consensus guidelines stating this fact, some healthcare systems still compel patients to participate in a structured lifestyle modification programme prior to metabolic or obesity surgery. There is a well-established need for individualised multidisciplinary dietetic and physical activity care for metabolic and obesity surgery patients, and the benefits of intentional weight loss prior to surgery are well proven, but these are distinct from potentially harmful requirements for patients to undertake compulsory structured lifestyle programmes of fixed duration, frequency and intensity, which may delay surgery and reinforce obesity stigma. A critical step in rejuvenating metabolic surgery is to reframe patient participation in structured lifestyle modification programmes as an opportunity for education and empowerment, not as an indicator of motivation or suitability for metabolic surgery. Large, well-designed and adequately powered clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties in the evidence base for these programmes. Given genuine equipoise, they will need to determine whether "surgery plus lifestyle" is superior to "surgery plus placebo". Moreover, they will need to determine the cost-effectiveness of these programmes and identify some of the factors giving rise to the substantial heterogeneity in responses to structured lifestyle modification.

The avoidable delay in weight loss surgery for those with BMI over 50

BACKGROUND

Many insurance companies mandate medically supervised weight loss programs (MSWLPs) prior to bariatric surgery. This retrospective study aims to elucidate whether the average 6-month preoperative medical-management period decreases preoperative BMI for those with BMI ≥ 50.

METHODS

All adult patients with bariatric consultation at any time at the New York University Langone Health campuses during the period 2015 to 2021 were evaluated via electronic medical records. Only patients with ≥ BMI 50, without previous bariatric surgeries, and those with 6-month insurance-mandated medical visits were included. A paired t-test was performed on the difference in BMI and percent-weight loss among the subjects at least 6 months before surgery and on the day of surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 130 patients with BMI ≥ 50, undergoing preoperative 6-month office weigh-ins, the mean difference in BMI was - 1.51 (P < 0.01). The mean total body weight loss was 4.8% (P < 0.01). There were no intraoperative complications nor 30-day complications or mortality in the group.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that there was weight loss during the 6-month insurance-mandated medical management prior to surgery, but the amount (4.8%) did not reach the goal target of 10% of body weight. We found that there were no complications and question the need for prolonged delay to surgery.

Structured Lifestyle Modification Prior to Bariatric Surgery: How Much is Enough?

Many healthcare systems require patients to participate in a structured lifestyle modification programme prior to bariatric surgery, even though bariatric consensus guidelines do not recommend this. While there is good evidence that such programmes improve health in other conditions such as metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, there is no evidence that they improve outcomes after bariatric surgery. The distinction needs to be drawn between the well-established need for individualised multidisciplinary dietetic and physical activity care for bariatric surgical patients and the potential harms from mandating participation in compulsory structured lifestyle programmes of fixed duration, frequency and intensity, which may delay surgery, reinforce obesity stigma, or both. Large clinical trials might help to address some of the uncertainty and provide an evidence base for clinicians and policymakers.

Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Following Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries, with worsening pandemics of type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity as major cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Clinical trials of nonsurgical obesity treatments have not shown benefits in CVD, although recent diabetes trials have demonstrated major CV benefits. In many retrospective and prospective cohort studies, however, metabolic (bariatric) surgery is associated with substantial and reproducible CVD benefits. Despite a lack of prospective, randomized clinical trials, data suggest metabolic surgery may be the most effective modality for CVD risk reduction, likely through weight loss and weight loss-independent mechanisms.

Metabolic surgery: A clinical update

Metabolic and bariatric surgery has grown beyond 'experimental' weight-loss surgery. As techniques have advanced over the last few decades, so has the growing body of research and evidence, proving that both weight-loss and metabolic health improvement are induced. Metabolic surgery has become the more appropriate term for weight-loss surgery because of the altered gastrointestinal anatomy and subsequent beneficial metabolic effects. Although the tool of metabolic surgery has been well refined, a large portion of the global population does not have adequate access to it. This clinical update aims to (a) inform healthcare providers from all disciplines about the myriad of benefits of metabolic surgery and (b) equip them with the necessary knowledge to bridge the gap between patients in need of metabolic treatment and the therapies in metabolic surgery available to them.

Weight loss after bariatric surgery: a comparison between delayed and immediate qualification according to the last resort criterion

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, patients only qualify for bariatric surgery when they have followed a 6-month mandatory weight loss program (MWP), also called the "last resort" criterion. One of the rationales for this is that MWPs result in greater weight loss.

OBJECTIVES

To determine weight loss during MWPs and the effect of delayed versus immediate qualification on weight loss 3 years after bariatric surgery.

SETTING

Outpatient clinic.

METHODS

This is a nationwide, retrospective study with prospectively collected data. All patients who underwent a primary bariatric procedure in 2016 were included. We compared weight loss between patients who did not qualify according to the last resort criterion at screening (delayed group) with patients that qualified (immediate group).

RESULTS

In total 2628 patients were included. Mean age was 44.4 years, 81.3% were female, and baseline BMI was 42.3 kg/m². Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was the most frequently performed surgery (77.0%), followed by sleeve gastrectomy (15.8%) and banded RYGB (7.3%). The delayed group (n = 831; 32%) compared with immediate group (n = 1797; 68%), showed less percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) during the MWP (1.7% versus 3.9%, P < .001) and time between screening and surgery was longer (42.3 versus 17.5 wk, P < .001). Linear mixed model analysis showed no significant difference in %TWL at 18- (P = .291, n = 2077), 24- (P = .580, n = 1993) and 36-month (P = .325, n = 1743) follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that delayed qualification for bariatric surgery compared with immediate qualification does not have a clinically relevant impact on postoperative weight loss 3 years after bariatric surgery.

Development and Validation of a Predictive Model of Success in Bariatric Surgery

PURPOSE

There are no criteria to establish priority for bariatric surgery candidates in the public health system in several countries. The aim of this study is to identify preoperative characteristics that allow predicting the success after bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred and sixty-one patients submitted to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were included. Success of the surgery was defined as the sum of five outcome variables, assessed at baseline and 12 months after the surgery: excess weight loss, use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) as a treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), daily number of antidiabetics, daily number of antihypertensive drugs, and all-cause mortality. Partial least squares (PLS) regression and multiple linear regression were performed to identify preoperative predictors. We performed a 90/10 split of the dataset in train and test sets and ran a leave-one-out cross-validation on the train set and the best PLS model was chosen based on goodness-of-fit criteria.

RESULTS

The preoperative predictors of success after bariatric surgery included lower age, presence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and OSA, more years of CPAP/BiPAP use, negative history of cardiovascular disease, and lower number of antihypertensive drugs. The PLS model displayed a mean absolute percent error of 0.1121 in the test portion of the dataset, leading to accurate predictions of postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This success index allows prioritizing patients with the best indication for the procedure and could be incorporated in the public health system as a support tool in the decision-making process.

COVID-19: IFSO LAC Recommendations for the Resumption of Elective Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic varies greatly and has different dynamics in every country, city, and hospital in Latin America. Obesity increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it is one of the independent risk factors for the most severe cases of COVID-19. Currently, the most effective treatment against obesity available is bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS), which further resolves or improves other independent risk factors like diabetes and hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

Provide recommendations for the resumption of elective BMS during COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

This document was created by the IFSO-LAC Executive Board and a task force. Based on data collected from a survey distributed to all IFSO-LAC members that obtained 540 responses, current evidence available, and consensus reached by other scientific societies.

RESULTS

The resumption of elective BMS must be a priority maybe similar to oncological surgery, when hospitals reach phase I or II, treating obesity patients in a NON-COVID area, avoiding inadvertent intrahospital contagion from healthcare provider, patients, and relatives. Same BMS indication and types of procedures as before the pandemic. Discard the presence of SARS-CoV-2 within 72 h prior to surgery. Continues laparoscopic approach. The entire team use N95 mask. Minimum hospital stays. Implement remote visits for the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Resumption of elective BMS is crucial because it is not only a weight loss operation but also resolves or improves comorbidities and appears to be an immune restorative procedure of obese patients in the medium term, offering them the same probability of contracting COVID-19 as the regular population.

Modeling the Impact of Delaying Bariatric Surgery due to COVID-19: a Decision Analysis

We developed a decision analysis model to evaluate risks and benefits of delaying scheduled bariatric surgery during the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Our base case was a 45-year-old female with diabetes and a body mass index of 45 kg/m². We compared immediate with delayed surgery after 6 months to allow for COVID-19 prevalence to decrease. We found that immediate and delayed bariatric surgeries after 6 months resulted in similar 20-year overall survival. When the probability of COVID-19 infection exceeded 4%, then delayed surgery improved survival. If future COVID-19 infection rates were at least half those in the immediate scenario, then immediate surgery was favored and local infection rates had to exceed 9% before surgical delay improved survival. Surgeons should consider local disease prevalence and patient comorbidities associated with increased mortality before resuming bariatric surgery programs.

Preferences for Weight Loss Treatment Amongst Treatment-Seeking Patients with Severe Obesity: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for weight loss vary considerably with regard to risks and benefits, but the relative importance of treatment characteristics in patient decision-making is largely unknown, particularly amongst patients with severe obesity. Developing such services requires insight into the preferences of recipients for service attributes.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to quantify, using a discrete choice experiment, the preferences of treatment-seeking patients with severe obesity within the Irish population regarding different attributes of various obesity treatments.

METHODS

Within a cohort of patients with severe obesity attending a hospital-based weight management programme, patients' attitudes to and perceptions of three distinct treatment modalities were compared to those regarding not having treatment. The treatments included a structured lifestyle modification programme, lifestyle modification alongside weight loss medication, and bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

On average, patients with severe and complicated obesity who were attending a weight management programme were more enthusiastic about participating in a programme to help improve their diet and physical activity than they were about having surgery if the methods of treatment had equivalent results and costs.

CONCLUSION

The findings provide insights into preferences that might assist the development of more appropriate treatments for severe obesity.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Factors Associated With Long Wait Times for Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite its proven safety and efficacy, bariatric surgery is an underutilized therapy for severe obesity. Wait times for surgery are largely unexplored in the United States and may impact access to care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the amount of time between initial bariatric surgery clinic visit and operative date and identify factors associated with longer wait times.

METHODS

A statewide clinical data registry was queried from 2006 to 2016 and 60,791 patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery were identified. Demographics, comorbidities, 30-day complications, and 1-year patient-reported outcomes were compared between shortest and longest wait time quartiles. Analyses were performed using Chi-square, t-test, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Median wait times for bariatric surgery increased from 86 to 159 days during the study period. Median wait times were ≤67 days for the shortest wait time quartile and ≥204 days for the longest wait time quartile. Factors independently associated with longer wait times included Medicaid insurance [odds ratio (OR) 3.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.58-3.53], sleep apnea (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 1.41-1.58), psychological disorder (OR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.18-1.32), hyperlipidemia (OR 1.21; 95% CI: 1.14-1.28), smoking history (OR 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05-1.17), and white race (OR 0.665; 95% CI: 0.614-0.720). Preoperative weight loss, risk adjusted complication rates, postoperative self-reported weight loss, and comorbidity remission were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, eligible patients are experiencing longer wait times when pursuing bariatric surgery. Complex patients with Medicaid insurance are experiencing the longest delay despite similar outcomes and preoperative weight loss. Policies that delay surgery should be re-examined.

Bariatric surgery is a cost-saving treatment for obesity-A comprehensive meta-analysis and updated systematic review of health economic evaluations of bariatric surgery

Demand for bariatric surgery to treat severe and resistant obesity far outstrips supply. We aimed to comprehensively synthesise health economic evidence regarding bariatric surgery from 1995 to 2018 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018094189). Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the annual cost changes "before" and "after" surgery, and cumulative cost differences between surgical and nonsurgical groups. An updated narrative review also summarized the full and partial health economic evaluations of surgery from September 2015. N = 101 studies were eligible for the qualitative analyses since 1995, with n = 24 studies after September 2015. Quality of reporting has increased, and the inclusion of complications/reoperations was predominantly contained in the full economic evaluations after September 2015. Technical improvements in surgery were also reflected across the studies. Sixty-one studies were eligible for the quantitative meta-analyses. Compared with no/conventional treatment, surgery was cost saving over a lifetime scenario. Additionally, consideration of indirect costs through sensitivity analyses increased cost savings. Medication cost savings were dominant in the before versus after meta-analysis. Overall, bariatric surgery is cost saving over the life course even without considering indirect costs. Health economists are hearing the call to present higher quality studies and include the costs of complications/reoperations; however, indirect costs and body contouring surgery are still not appropriately considered.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

How Ethical Is Our Current Delivery of Care to Patients with Severe and Complicated Obesity?

Despite overwhelming evidence that bariatric interventions reduce morbidity and mortality and are cost-effective, access for affected patients is limited. We sought to describe the extent to which health policy makers and publically funded health services have an ethical obligation to provide bariatric care. We conducted a narrative review of the literature pertaining to the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgical interventions, in the context of the core principles of medical ethics. We found that in relation to autonomy (i.e., the right to self-determination), beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice (i.e., the obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment to all patients), the current provision of bariatric surgical care fell short of meeting internationally recognized medical ethical standards. These findings have important implications for government policy and healthcare resource allocation. Respecting the individual’s right of self-determination, to do good, prevent harm, and provide equity in access to services is paramount, even when that individual is obese.

Bariatric surgery is associated with a lower rate of death after myocardial infarction and stroke: A nationwide study

AIM

To assess the potential protective effect of bariatric surgery on mortality after myocardial infarction (MI) or cerebrovascular accident (CVA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample (2007-2014), 2218 patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of acute MI and 2168 patients with ischaemic CVA who also had history of prior bariatric surgery were identified. Utilizing propensity scores, these patients were matched 1:5 with patients who had similar principal diagnoses but no history of bariatric surgery (controls). Control group-1 included participants with obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² ) only and participants in control group-2 were matched according to post-surgery BMI with the bariatric surgery group. The primary and secondary endpoints were in-hospital all-cause mortality and length of hospital stay, respectively. Outcomes after MI and CVA were separately compared among groups in multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 48 300 (weighted) participants were included in the analysis. The distribution of covariates was well balanced after propensity matching. Mortality rates after MI were significantly lower in patients with a history of bariatric surgery compared with control group-1 (1.85% vs 3.03%; odds ratio (OR), 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.44-0.86; P = 0.004) and with control group-2 (2.00% vs 3.26%; OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88; P = 0.008). Similarly, in-hospital mortality rates after CVA were significantly lower in patients with a history of bariatric surgery compared with control group-1 (1.43% vs 2.74%; OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79; P = 0.001) and with control group-2 (1.54% vs 2.59%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91; P = 0.015). Furthermore, length of stay was significantly shorter in the bariatric surgery group for all comparisons (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prior bariatric surgery is associated with significant protective effect on survival after MI and CVA.

Bariatric surgery in older adults: Should there be an age limit?

Obesity has become one of the most significant health problems worldwide, affecting more than one-third of the global population. The elderly population is not immune to this proportional increase in obesity. To date, there is no cure for obesity, but surgery is the most effective treatment available today.We analyzed the results of bariatric surgery in elderly patients for a period of 3 years. Patients 65 years old and older were included in the study, 451 older adults were included. The mean age of the study group was 67.92 years old (min. 65, max. 84). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 40.32 Kg/m (min. 34 and max. 59). Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) was the most common procedures, and were conducted in 346 (76.72%) patients, gastric bypasses (GBPs) in 53 (11.75%) of which 33 were roux en y GBP (7.32%) and 20 mini GBPs (4.43%), gastric banding in 48 (10.64%), and duodenal switching in 4 (0.89%) cases.There were 40 (8.86%) patients with perioperative complications, 6 (1.33%) required re-operations, 12 (2.66) patients with operative complications were treated conservatively, 8 (1.77%) re-admission 5 of them with intrabdominal abscess, and 14 (3.10%) with co-morbidities complications. More than 76% of the patients had co-morbidities, 1 year after surgery the average remission of diseases was 34.74%, the improvement was49.67% and no changes in the co-morbidities was 15.59%. There were no deaths reported in this cohort.The mean excess body weight (EBW) loss among the patients was 70.76% (from 32% to 92%). No failure of weight loss (less than 25% of EBW loss) was observed after the first postoperative year.Bariatric surgery offers obese elderly patients an acceptable result, and it can be offered to improve the quality of life of these patients. A new consensus conference panel is needed to set appropriate recommendations regarding criteria that limit bariatric surgery in older adults.

Refusal of Cancer-Directed Surgery by Breast Cancer Patients: Risk Factors and Survival Outcomes

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that some patients with breast cancer may refuse cancer-directed surgery, but the incidence in the United States is not currently known. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence, trends, risk factors, and eventual survival outcomes associated with refusal of recommended breast cancer-directed surgery.

PATIENTS

A retrospective review of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2013 was performed. Patients who underwent cancer-directed surgery were compared with patients in whom cancer-directed surgery was refused, even though it was recommended.

RESULTS

Of 531,700 patients identified, 3389 (0.64%) refused surgery. An increasing trend was observed from 2004 to 2013 (P = .009). Older age (50-69: odds ratio [OR] 4.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-19.96; P = .024, ≥ 70 years: OR 17.27; 95% CI, 4.29-69.54; P < .001), ethnicity (P < .001), marital status (single: OR 2.28; 95% CI, 1.98-2.62; P < .001, separated/divorced/widowed: OR 2.26; 95% CI, 2.01-2.53; P < .001), higher stage (II: OR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.83-2.3; P < .001, III: OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.87-2.6; P < .001, IV: OR 13.3; 95% CI, 11.67-15.16; P < .001), and lack of medical insurance (OR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.8; P < .001) were identified as risk factors associated with refusal of surgery. Survival analysis showed a 2.42 higher risk of mortality in these patients.

CONCLUSION

There has been an increasing rate of patients refusing recommended surgery, which significantly affects survival. Age, ethnicity, marital status, disease stage, and lack of insurance are associated with higher risk of refusal of surgery.

What is the impact on the healthcare system if access to bariatric surgery is delayed?

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has been available as part of the Brazilian Public Health System for patients with body mass index>40 kg/m² (or>35 kg/m² with co-morbidities) since 1999. However, access to surgery is challenging, with eligible patients waiting up to 7 years before surgery.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare costs and effectiveness of different waiting times before surgery versus prompt surgery.

SETTINGS

Public practice.

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model compared 5 different strategies: no surgery, prompt surgery, and delaying surgery for 1, 2, 4, and 7 years. Markov tracker variables and states reflected changes in body mass index, type 2 diabetes status (including remission and relapse), and cardiovascular events. Time horizon was 20 years; discount rate, 5%; and the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System. Effectiveness was calculated as quality adjusted life years.

RESULTS

Prompt surgery was the least costly and most effective strategy compared with any delay. Costs increased and effectiveness diminished progressively with the length of delays. Waiting 7 years for surgery was the most expensive and least effective strategy. Prompt surgery maintained dominance in 99.9%, 90.7%, 96.1%, and 94.2% of simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analyses versus 1-, 2-, 4-, and 7-year delays, respectively. Immediate surgery was very cost effective compared with no surgery in the case base. In the scenario with all patients having type 2 diabetes, immediate surgery was dominant to any strategy, including the no surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Delaying bariatric operations is more expensive and less effective compared with prompt surgery and very cost effective compared with no surgery. Public health systems should pursue strategies to accelerate access to surgery to decrease obesity related complications and mortality of patients, but also to improve cost effectiveness.

Bariatric surgery insurance requirements independently predict surgery dropout

BACKGROUND

Many insurance companies have considerable prebariatric surgery requirements despite a lack of evidence for improved clinical outcomes. The hypothesis of this study is that insurance-specific requirements will be associated with a decreased progression to surgery and increased delay in time to surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective data collection was performed for patients undergoing bariatric surgery evaluation from 2010-2015. Patients who underwent surgery (SGY; n = 827; mean body mass index [BMI] 49.1) were compared with those who did not (no-SGY; n = 648; mean BMI: 49.4). Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify specific co-morbidity and insurance specific predictors of surgical dropout and time to surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1475 patients using 12 major insurance payors were included. Univariate analysis found insurance requirements associated with surgical drop out included longer median diet duration (no-SGY = 6 mo; SGY = 3 mo; P<.001); primary care physician letter of necessity (P<.0001); laboratory testing (P = .019); and evaluation by cardiology (P<.001), pulmonology (P<.0001), or psychiatry (P = .0003). Using logistic regression to control for co-morbidities, longer diet requirement (odds ratio [OR] .88, P<.0001), primary care physician letter (OR .33, P<.0001), cardiology evaluation (OR .22, P = .038), and advanced laboratory testing (OR 5.75, P = .019) independently predicted surgery dropout. Additionally, surgical patients had an average interval between initial visit and surgery of 5.8±4.6 months with significant weight gain (2.1 kg, P<.0001).

CONCLUSION

Many prebariatric surgery insurance requirements were associated with lack of patient progression to surgery in this study. In addition, delays in surgery were associated with preoperative weight gain. Although prospective and multicenter studies are needed, these findings have major policy implications suggesting insurance requirements may need to be reconsidered to improve medical care.