Impact of a National Bariatric Surgery Center of Excellence Program on Medicare Expenditures

Heartburn Center Set-Up in a Community Setting: Engineering and Execution

Background: Optimal management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) requires a concerted team of physicians rather than an individual approach. While an integrated approach to GERD has previously been proposed, the practical execution of such a "center of excellence" (COE) has not been described, particularly in a community setting. Ranging from initial consultation and diagnosis to surgical intervention for complex disease, such an approach is likely to provide optimal care and provide surveillance for patients with a complex disease process of GERD. Methods: We report our approach to implement an integrated heartburn center (HBC) and our experience with the first cohort of patients. Patients treated in the HBC were followed for 2 years from initial consultation to completion of their appropriate treatment plan, including anti-reflux surgery. The performance prior to the HBC set-up was compared to that post-HBC. Performance was measured in terms of volume of patients referred, referral patterns, length of stay (LOS), and patient health-related quality of life (HRQL) pre- and post-surgery. Results: Setting up the HBC resulted in referrals from multiple avenues, including primary care physicians (PCPs), emergency departments (EDs), and gastroenterologists (GIs). There was a 75% increase in referrals compared to pre-center patient volumes. Among the initial cohort of 832 patients presenting to the HBC, <10% had GERD for <1 year, ~60% had GERD for 1-11 years, and ~30% had GERD for ≥12 years. More than one-quarter had atypical GERD symptoms (27.6%). Only 6.4% had been on PPIs for <1 year and >20% had been on PPIs for ≥12 years. Thirty-eight patients were found to have Barrett's esophagus (4.6%) (up to 10 times the general population prevalence). Two patients had dysplasia. Seven patients (0.8%) received radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for Barrett's esophagus and two patients received endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for Barrett's esophagus-related dysplasia. The most common comorbidities were chronic pulmonary disease (16.8%) and diabetes without complications (10.6%). Patients received treatment for newly identified comorbid conditions, including early maladaptive schemas (EMS) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) (n = 7; 0.8%). Fifty cases required consultation with various specialists (6.0%) and 34 of those (4.1%) resulted in changes in care. Despite the significant increase in patient referrals, conversion rates from diagnosis to anti-reflux surgery remained consistent at ~25%. Overall HRQL improved year-over-year, and LOS was significantly reduced with potential cost savings for the larger institution. Conclusions: While centralization of GERD care is known to improve outcomes, in this case study we demonstrated the clinical success and commercial viability of centralizing GERD care in a community setting. The integrated GERD service line center offered a comprehensive, multi-specialty, and coordinated patient-centered approach. The approach is reproducible and may allow hospitals to set up their own heartburn COEs, strengthening patient-community relationships and establishing scientific and clinical GERD leadership.

The effect of the cystic fibrosis care center on outcomes after lung transplantation for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) who underwent lung transplant (LT) at a transplant center with an accredited Cystic Fibrosis Care Center (CFCC) in the United States.

METHODS

We reviewed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for all adult patients with CF who received a first-time LT from 2005 to 2018. The primary outcome was graft failure. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis and adjusted multilevel Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate outcomes in CF patients undergoing lung transplantation at a CFCC.

RESULTS

2,573 patients with CF underwent a first time LT during the study period. Of the 68 lung transplantation centers, 50 were CFCCs (73.5%). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients who underwent lung transplantation at a hospital with an accredited CFCC had a 33% reduction in risk of death or re-transplantation compared to those transplanted at a hospital without an accredited CFCC (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.82, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

People with CF who undergo LT at a transplant center with a CFCC have improved graft survival and decreased need for re-transplantation compared to those who undergo LT at a non-CFCC, independent of volume.

Pre-operative aerobic exercise on metabolic health and surgical outcomes in patients receiving bariatric surgery: A pilot trial

Objective

Examine if adding aerobic exercise to standard medical care (EX+SC) prior to bariatric surgery improves metabolic health in relation to surgical outcomes.

Methods

Fourteen bariatric patients (age: 42.3±2.5y, BMI: 45.1±2.5 kg/m²) met inclusion criteria and were match-paired to pre-operative SC (n = 7) or EX+SC (n = 7; walking 30min/d, 5d/wk, 65–85% HR_peak) for 30d. A 120min mixed meal tolerance test was performed pre- and post-intervention (~2d prior to surgery) to assess insulin sensitivity (Matsuda Index) and metabolic flexibility (indirect calorimetry). Aerobic fitness (VO₂peak), body composition (BodPod), and adipokines (adiponectin, leptin) were also measured. Omental adipose tissue was collected during surgery to quantify gene expression of adiponectin and leptin, and operating time and length of hospital stay were recorded. ANOVA and Cohen’s d effect size (ES) was used to test group differences.

Results

SC tended to increase percent body fat (P = 0.06) after the intervention compared to EX+SC. Although SC and EX+SC tended to raise insulin sensitivity (P = 0.11), EX+SC enhanced metabolic flexibility (P = 0.01, ES = 1.55), reduced total adiponectin (P = 0.01, ES = 1.54) with no change in HMW adiponectin and decreased the length of hospital stay (P = 0.05) compared to SC. Albeit not statistically significant, EX+SC increased VO₂peak 2.9% compared to a 5.9% decrease with SC (P = 0.24, ES = 0.91). This increased fitness correlated to shorter operating time (r = -0.57, P = 0.03) and length of stay (r = -0.58, P = 0.03). Less omental total adiponectin (r = 0.52, P = 0.09) and leptin (r = 0.58, P = 0.05) expression correlated with shorter operating time, and low leptin expression was linked to shorter length of stay (r = 0.70, P = 0.01), and low leptin expression was linked to shorter length of stay (r = 0.70, P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Adding pre-operative aerobic exercise to standard care may improve surgical outcomes through a fitness and adipose tissue derived mechanism.

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.

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.

Pro-con debate on regionalization of emergency general surgery: controversy or common sense?

More than three million patients every year develop emergency general surgical (EGS) conditions and this number is rising. EGS diseases range from straightforward to potentially life-threatening, and if severe or complex may require extensive resources. Given the looming surgeon shortage and concerns about access to care, regionalization of EGS care, in a manner similar to trauma care, has been proposed. We present a unique pro-con debate highlighting the salient arguments for and against regionalization of EGS care in the USA.

What Are the Real Procedural Costs of Bariatric Surgery? A Systematic Literature Review of Published Cost Analyses

This review aims to evaluate the current literature on the procedural costs of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity. Using a published framework for the conduct of micro-costing studies for surgical interventions, existing cost estimates from the literature are assessed for their accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness based on their consideration of seven ‘important’ cost components. MEDLINE, PubMed, key journals and reference lists of included studies were searched up to January 2017. Eligible studies had to report per-case, total procedural costs for any type of bariatric surgery broken down into two or more individual cost components. A total of 998 citations were screened, of which 13 studies were included for analysis. Included studies were mainly conducted from a US hospital perspective, assessed either gastric bypass or adjustable gastric banding procedures and considered a range of different cost components. The mean total procedural costs for all included studies was US$14,389 (range, US$7423 to US$33,541). No study considered all of the recommended ‘important’ cost components and estimation methods were poorly reported. The accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness of the existing cost estimates are, therefore, questionable. There is a need for a comparative cost analysis of the different approaches to bariatric surgery, with the most appropriate costing approach identified to be micro-costing methods. Such an analysis will not only be useful in estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of different surgeries but will also ensure appropriate reimbursement and budgeting by healthcare payers to ensure barriers to access this effective treatment by severely obese patients are minimised.

Centers of excellence in healthcare institutions: what they are and how to assemble them

BACKGROUND

Centers of excellence-specialized programs within healthcare institutions which supply exceptionally high concentrations of expertise and related resources centered on particular medical areas and delivered in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary fashion-afford many advantages for healthcare providers and the populations they serve. To achieve full value from centers of excellence, proper assembly is an absolute necessity, but guidance is somewhat limited. This effectively forces healthcare providers to pursue establishment largely via trial-and-error, diminishing opportunities for success.

DISCUSSION

Successful development of a center of excellence first requires the acquisition of a detailed understanding of the delivery model and its benefits. Then, concerted actions must be taken on a particular series of administrative and clinical fronts, treating them in prescribed manners to afford synergies which yield an exceptionally high level of care. To reduce hardships associated with acquiring this rather elusive knowledge, remedy shortcomings in the literature, and potentially bolster community health broadly, this article presents information and insights gleaned from Willis-Knighton Health System's extensive experience assembling and operating centers of excellence. This work is intended to educate and enlighten, but most importantly, supply guidance which will permit healthcare establishments to replicate noted processes to realize their own centers of excellence.

CONCLUSIONS

Centers of excellence have the ability to dramatically enhance the depth and breadth of healthcare services available in communities. Given the numerous mutual benefits afforded by this delivery model, it is hoped that the light shed by this article will help healthcare providers better understand centers of excellence and be more capable and confident in associated development initiatives, affording greater opportunities for themselves and their patient populations.