Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery Performed at Accredited vs Nonaccredited Centers

History and Role of Quality Accreditation

Accreditation has played a major role in the evolution of health care quality as well as the structure and organization of American medicine. In its earliest iterations, accreditation aimed to set a minimum standard of care, and now more prominently sets standards for high quality, optimal patient care. There are several institutions that provide accreditations that are relevant to colorectal surgery including the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Commission on Cancer, National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Designation, National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, and the ACS Geriatrics Verification Program. While each program has unique criteria, the aim of accreditation is to assure high-quality evidenced-based care. In addition to these benchmarks, these programs provide avenues for collaboration and research between centers and programs.

Implementation of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program and outcomes of bariatric surgery

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the performance of bariatric surgery prior to and after the implementation of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP).

METHODS

The eras prior to (2007-2015) and after (2016-2018) the transition to MBSAQIP were compared for patients, operations and outcomes using adjusted logistic regression estimates.

RESULTS

Thirty-day surgical (6%vs.2.9%,p < 0.01) and medical (3.4%vs.1.7%,p < 0.01) complications rates were reduced over the period 2007 through 2018. Th use of sleeve gastrectomy has steadily increased from 2010 to 2018 (14%vs.66.6%,p < 0.01). The proportion of patients who were discharged early continued to rise (9.8%vs.46.9%,p < 0.01) from 2007 to 2018. The MBSAQIP period was associated with reduced odds for 30-day surgical (OR = 0.86,CI = [0.81-0.91]) and medical (OR = 0.81,CI = [0.75-0.88]) complications. Implementation of the MBSAQIP was also predictive of early discharge (OR = 1.93,CI = [1.90-2.00]).

CONCLUSION

The type of bariatric procedure, in addition to trends in morbidity and hospital stays, gradually changed from 2007 to 2018. Our findings suggest that outcomes of bariatric operations have improved over the past decade. The MBSAQIP era is associated with lower rates of complications and greater likelihood of early discharge, independent of the procedure type.

Effect of high-risk factors on postoperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events trends following bariatric surgery in the United States from 2012 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Recent examination of trends in postoperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACE) following bariatric surgery, including accredited and nonaccredited centers, and the factors affecting those trends, is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate current trends for postoperative MACE after bariatric surgery in both accredited and nonaccredited centers and the factors affecting these trends.

SETTING

This retrospective study was conducted using National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 to 2019.

METHODS

All patients who underwent inpatient laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), open sleeve gastrectomy (SG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were examined. Composite MACE (acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, acute stroke, and in-hospital death during bariatric surgery hospitalization) was calculated and analyzed over time along with patient demographic and co-morbid diseases using survey-weighted logistic regression.

RESULTS

MACE incidence was lowest for LSG (0.07%), followed by LRYGB (0.16%), SG (3.47%), and RYBG (3.51%). Open procedure, increasing age, male sex, body mass index ≥50, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic kidney disease were independent predictors for increased MACE risk. MACE incidence increased over time for SG (odds ratio [OR] 1.25 [1.16, 1.34]; P < .0001) and RYGB (OR 1.14 [1.06, 1.22]; P = .0004) but decreased for LRYGB (OR 0.93 [0.87, 1] P = .06). After adjustment for high-risk covariates, increased MACE trend seen over time was attenuated in SG (OR 1.13 [1.04-1.22]; P = .005) and RYGB (OR 1.04 [0.96-1.12]; P = .36), while there was minimal effect of these high-risk covariates on MACE trend over time in LSG and LRYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

MACE following LSG and LRYGB is rare, occurring in 0.1% of patients. Persistently increasing high-risk conditions and demographics has had minimal effect on MACE over time for LSG and LRYGB but has had significant effect on MACE trend over time in SG and RYGB.

Bariatric Center Designation and Outcomes Following Repeat Abdominal Surgery in Bariatric Patients

INTRODUCTION

Repeat abdominal surgery in the bariatric surgery patient population may be challenging for non-bariatric-accredited institutions. The impact of regionalized bariatric care on clinical outcomes for bariatric surgery patients requiring repeat abdominal surgery is currently unknown. This study aims to investigate the association between bariatric center designation and clinical outcomes following hepatobiliary, hernia, and upper and lower gastrointestinal operations among patients with prior bariatric surgery.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of a large sample of Ontario residents who underwent primary bariatric surgery between 2010 and 2017. A comprehensive list of eligible abdominal operations was captured using administrative data. The primary outcome was 30-d complications. Secondary outcomes included 30-d mortality, readmission, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Among the 3301 study patients, 1305 (40%) received their first abdominal reoperation following bariatric surgery at a designated bariatric center. Nonbariatric center designation was not associated with significantly higher rates of 30-d complications (5.73% versus 5.72%), mortality (0.80% versus 0.77%), readmissions (1.11% versus 1.85%), or median postoperative length of stay (4 versus 4 d). After grouping the category of reoperations, upper gastrointestinal (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.11) and abdominal wall hernia surgery (OR 0.52, CI 0.27-0.99) showed a lower adjusted OR for complications among bariatric centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that after adjustment for case-mix and patient characteristics, bariatric surgery patients undergoing repeat abdominal surgery at nonbariatric centers is not associated with higher proportion of complications or mortality. Complex hernia surgery may be considered the most appropriate for referral.

Providing access to affordable bariatric surgery for uninsured Denver County residents: description of a successful public health initiative

BACKGROUND

Severe obesity disproportionately affects medically underserved communities. However, patients from these communities are the least likely to have access to affordable bariatric surgery. Few studies have described successful initiatives to mitigate this disparity.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the implementation of a public health initiative that provided affordable bariatric surgery to uninsured patients at our hospital.

SETTING

Denver Health Medical Center (DHMC), a Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP)-accredited safety-net hospital.

METHODS

Context regarding Denver city and county, DHMC, and bariatric surgery accreditation are provided, followed by a detailed description of the intervention.

RESULTS

Successful implementation of the initiative centered around: (1) MBSAQIP accreditation; (2) identification of existing institutional charity care programs, (3) enlistment of support/buy-in from key parties; (4) presentation of both general and institutional-specific outcome data following bariatric surgery to hospital administration; (5) framing of the argument as primarily financial, rather than moral; (6) delineation of initial volume and risk expectations; and (7) outcome monitoring.

CONCLUSION

We successfully provided access to affordable bariatric surgery for uninsured patients at our accredited safety-net hospital.

Robotic surgery results in better outcomes following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program analysis for the years 2015-2018

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery in bariatric patients is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcome of robotic surgery in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral hospital.

METHODS

A total of 149,132 patients who underwent RYGB in the 2015 to 2018 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database were included in our initial analysis. The propensity-matched analysis that was performed resulted in 21,736 patients, whose data were utilized to compare outcomes of the robotic (R) and laparoscopic (L) groups. Patients were also compared after dividing them into obese (body mass index [BMI] < 50 kg/m²) and super-obese categories (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m²).

RESULTS

R-RYGB patients had a significantly lower 30-day incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and bleeding (2.0% and .7%, respectively, for R-RYGB versus 2.4% and 1.3%, respectively, for L-RYGB; P ≤ .05) but a higher incidence of 30-day reoperation compared to L-RYGB patients (2.7% versus 2.3%, respectively; P ≤ .05). The R-RYGB group also had a shorter length of hospital stay compared to the L-RYGB group (1.98 versus 2.02 days, respectively; P ≤ .05), but higher readmission rates (7.1% versus 5.8%, respectively; P ≤ .05). The robotic approach also resulted in lower mortality rates for those in the super-obese category. In that BMI category, 30-day mortality rates were .4% versus .2% for L-RYGB and R-RYGB patients, respectively (P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSION

The use of robotic surgery in bariatric patients is controversial. Our analysis, based on the MBSAQIP database for the years 2015 to 2018, demonstrated lower overall SAEs and bleeding rates, in addition to a shorter hospital stay, favoring robotic RYGB compared to laparoscopic RYGB. However, readmission and reoperation rates were higher in the robotic group. Randomized controlled trials are needed to further clarify the benefit of robotic surgery in bariatric patients.

The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program and the Practicing Colorectal Surgeon

The population is aging and older adults are increasingly undergoing surgery. Colorectal surgeons need to understand the risks inherent in the care of older adults and identify concrete ways to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population. Goals for the practicing colorectal surgeon include: 1) introduce the American College of Surgeons’ (ACS) Geriatric Surgery Verification (GSV) Program and understand the intersection with colorectal surgery, 2) examine the 30 evidence-based GSV standards and how they can achieve better outcomes after colorectal surgery, and 3) outline the value and benefits for colorectal surgeons of implementing such a program.

The Edmonton Obesity Staging System Predicts Perioperative Complications and Procedure Choice in Obesity and Metabolic Surgery-a German Nationwide Register-Based Cohort Study (StuDoQ|MBE)

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) and perioperative complications as well as surgical procedure.

BACKGROUND

The application of EOSS for the selection of patients with obesity is a more comprehensive measure of obesity-related diseases and a predictor of mortality than body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

This was a nationwide cohort study using prospectively inserted data from the German register for obesity and metabolic surgery StuDoQ|MBE. All patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) between February 2015 and July 2017 as a primary treatment for severe obesity were included. Data included gender, age, BMI, ASA score, EOSS, early postoperative complications next to the Clavien-Dindo grading system, readmission, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 9437 patients were included. The mean BMI was 49.5 kg/m² ± 7.8 (range 35-103.5). The total postoperative complication rate was 5.3%, with the highest rate in EOSS 3 (7.8%) and 4 (6.8%). Thirty-day mortality was 0.2% with the highest mortality after SG in EOSS 3 (1.16%) and EOSS 4 (0.92%) (p = 0.0068). Crosstabs showed a prevalence of Clavien-Dindo III and IV complications of 3.4% (SG), 3.6% (RYGB), and 1.6% (OAGB) in EOSS 2 (p = 0.0032) and 3.5% (SG), 5.1% (RYGB), and 5.6% (OAGB) in EOSS 3.

CONCLUSION

The highest postoperative complications and mortality occurred in patients with EOSS ≥ 3. SG and OAGB could be the procedure of choice to reduce perioperative morbidity; nevertheless, it has to be in mind that in EOSS ≥ 3, SG has the highest mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03556059.

Reoperation Incidence and Severity Within 6 Months After Bariatric Surgery: a Propensity-Matched Study from Nationwide Data

BACKGROUND

Data about incidence and severity of reoperations up to 6 months after bariatric surgery are currently limited. The aim of this cohort study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of reoperations after initial bariatric surgical procedures and to compare this between the 3 most frequent current surgical procedures (sleeve, gastric bypass, gastric banding).

STUDY DESIGN

Nationwide observational cohort study using data from French Hospital Information System (2013-2015) to evaluate incidence and severity of reoperations within 6 months after bariatric surgery. Hazard ratios (HR) of longitudinal comparison between historical propensity-matched cohorts were estimated from a Fine and Gray's model using competing risk of death.

RESULTS

Cumulative reoperation rates increased from postoperative day-30 to day-180. Consequently, 31.1 to 90.0% of procedures would have been missed if the reoperation rate was based solely on a 30-day follow-up. Reoperation rate at 6 months was significantly higher after gastric bypass than after sleeve (HR 0.64; IC 95% [0.53-0.77]) and corresponded to moderate-risk reoperations (HR 0.65; IC 95% [0.53-0.78]). Reoperation rate at 6 months was significantly higher after gastric banding than after sleeve (HR 0.08; IC 95% [0.07-0.09]) and corresponded to moderate-risk reoperations (HR 0.08; IC 95% [0.07-0.10]).

CONCLUSION

Cumulative incidence of reoperations increased from 30 days to 6 months after sleeve, gastric bypass, or gastric banding and corresponded to moderate-risk surgical procedures. Consequently, 30-day reoperation rate should no longer be considered when evaluating complications and surgical performance after bariatric surgery.

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.

Adrenalectomy Risk Score: An Original Preoperative Surgical Scoring System to Reduce Mortality and Morbidity After Adrenalectomy

OBJECTIVE

To explore the determinants of postoperative outcomes of adrenal surgery in order to build a proposition for healthcare improvement.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adrenalectomy is the recommended treatment for many benign and malignant adrenal diseases. Postoperative outcomes vary widely in the literature and their determinants remain ill-defined.

METHODS

We based this retrospective cohort study on the "Programme de médicalisation des systèmes d'information" (PMSI), a national database that compiles discharge abstracts for every admission to French acute health care facilities. Diagnoses identified during the admission were coded according to the French adaptation of the 10th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). PMSI abstracts for all patients discharged between January 2012 and December 2017 were extracted. We built an Adrenalectomy-risk score (ARS) from logistic regression and calculated operative volume and ARS thresholds defining high-volume centers and high-risk patients with the CHAID method.

RESULTS

During the 6-year period of the study, 9820 patients (age: 55 ± 14; F/M = 1.1) were operated upon for adrenal disease. The global 90-day mortality rate was 1.5% (n = 147). In multivariate analysis, postoperative mortality was independently associated with age ≥75 years [odds ratio (OR): 5.3; P < 0.001], malignancy (OR: 2.5; P < 0.001), Charlson score ≥2 (OR: 3.6; P < 0.001), open procedure (OR: 3.2; P < 0.001), reoperation (OR: 4.5; P < 0.001), and low hospital caseload (OR: 1.8; P = 0.010). We determined that a caseload of 32 patients/year was the best threshold to define high-volume centers and 20 ARS points the best threshold to define high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

High-risk patients should be referred to high-volume centers for adrenal surgery.

A meta-analysis of bariatric surgery-related outcomes in accredited versus unaccredited hospitals in the United States

The American Society for Bariatric Surgery established a set of standards for bariatric surgery Centers of Excellence accreditation programme in 2003. While several research efforts have shown that post-bariatric surgery outcomes were poorer in unaccredited as compared to accredited hospitals, others have questioned the same. This research effort sought to use random effects meta-analysis to quantitatively summarize the existing research efforts analysing this association, which were published between January 2000 and October 2018. Out of the total 559 articles, 13 that quantitatively analysed the effect of accreditation on post-operative mortality- and morbidity-related outcomes were included in the analysis. Overall, the weighted pooled estimates showed that compared to accredited, in the unaccredited hospitals, the odds of mortality were twice as high (odds ratio: 1.83; confidence interval: 1.49, 2.25), and those for morbidity were 1.23 times higher (1.11, 1.36). Estimates varied by the data source used, and the effect estimate used (odds or risk ratios). Overall, the odds of poor post-operative outcomes were higher among unaccredited hospitals as compared to accredited. However, there were analytic differences and other limitations among the existing efforts. Future research efforts conducting independent analyses on these data sources, keeping the methodology consistent are needed.

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.

The role of C-reactive protein after surgery for obesity and metabolic disorders

BACKGROUND

C-reactive protein (CRP) rise might be different in patients with obesity due to chronic inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to analyze postoperative CRP rise and its role as an early prognostic marker of infectious complications.

SETTING

Center of maximum care in Germany.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass as primary treatment for severe obesity were included. Serum CRP and leukocyte count were measured preoperatively, on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 4 and were analyzed regarding sex, body mass index, waist circumference, obesity-associated diseases, laboratory measurements (glycosylated hemoglobin, triglycerides, cholesterol), surgical procedure, infectious complications, and infectious with anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-one patients underwent surgery. Postoperative CRP rise was similar across sexes but lower in the super-super obese group (P < .05) and higher in the gastric bypass groups (P < .05). Linear regression model showed, that the higher preoperative value of waist circumference, the higher the preoperative CRP (beta value: .159, P = .006) and the lower the postoperative CRP rise on POD1 (beta value: -.171, P = .004) and 4 (beta value: -.170, P = .003). Only in the laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass group did a higher glycosylated hemoglobin predict a higher postoperative CRP rise (POD1: beta value: .434, P = .012; POD4: beta value: .513, P = .006). Fourteen patients (3%) developed infections, 7 of whom (1.5%) had anastomotic leakage. Leukocyte count was no predictor of infectious complications. The cut-off for CRP was 80.5 mg/L (POD1) and 164 mg/L (POD4), with 57.1% and 85.7% sensitivity and 97.9% and 99.6% specificity for anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

Standard postoperative CRP rises less in patients with higher waist circumference and super-super obesity, but more after gastric bypass procedures. CRP but not leukocyte count predicts early anastomotic healing after obesity surgery. These findings should be considered when interpreting CRP values in the routine clinical setting.

A novel risk prediction model for 30-day severe adverse events and readmissions following bariatric surgery based on the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Although bariatric surgery is safe, some patients fear serious complications.

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study used the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) database to evaluate patient outcomes for gastric bypass (GB) and sleeve gastrectomy and to develop a risk prediction model for serious adverse events (SAEs) and readmission rates 30 days after surgery.

SETTING

MBSAQIP national patient database.

METHODS

We created separate exploratory multivariable logistic regression models for SAEs and readmissions. We then externally validated both models using the 2016 MBSAQIP Participant Use Data File.

RESULTS

Significant predictors of SAEs were preoperative body mass index (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.07, P < .0001); GB surgery (AOR 2.08, P < .0001); cardiovascular disease (AOR 1.43, P < .0001); smoking (AOR 1.12, P = .04); diabetes (AOR 1.15, P = .0001); hypertension (AOR 1.17, P < .0001); limited ambulation (AOR 1.48, P < .0001); sleep apnea (AOR 1.12, P = .001); history of pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.81, P < .0001); and steroid use (AOR 1.40, P = .001). Significant predictors of readmissions were GB surgery (AOR 1.81, P < .0001); female sex (AOR 1.26, P < .0001); diabetes (AOR 1.08, P = .04); hypertension (AOR 1.11, P = .004); preoperative body mass index (AOR 1.05, P < .0001); sleep apnea (AOR 1.11, P = .002); history of pulmonary embolism (AOR 2.35, P < .0001); cardiovascular disease (AOR 1.61, P < .0001); smoking (AOR 1.14, P = .01); and limited ambulation (AOR 1.55, P < .0001). External validation supported these covariates, with similar model discriminative power.

CONCLUSIONS

Our exploratory regression models may be used by clinicians to counsel patients about surgical risks, although future external validation should occur in non-North American populations.

'No one is as invested in your continued good health as you should be:' an exploration of the post-surgical relationships between weight-loss surgery patients and their home bariatric clinics

This article traces the post-surgical relationship between weight-loss surgery (WLS) patients and their home bariatric clinics. Following surgery, there is substantive drop off in patient attendance at both follow-up appointments and support groups. While barriers to follow-up are often discussed with the bariatric literature, patients themselves are typically defined as the problem. Based upon a thematic analysis of 217 blog posts and comments in two top patient-led online forums, I demonstrate that bariatric patients tell a more complex story about their post-surgical lives. I argue that WLS patients constitute a population with highly specialised medical needs that is caught between the requirements for living with surgically altered digestive systems and a lack of sufficient post-operative follow-up care from their home bariatric clinics. Although online forums provide spaces for patients to examine these post-operative social and clinical experiences in critical terms, seek information and get support, ultimately the conversations serve to underline the value of personal responsibility for post-operative outcomes-a framing that echoes that of the bariatric profession. This framing should be understood within a larger climate of weight-based stigma and discrimination as well as neoliberal healthism.

Health Care Institutions Volume Is Significantly Associated with Postoperative Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery

PURPOSE

The volume of bariatric surgery has significantly increased over the past decade with concomitant postoperative outcomes improvement. The goal of this nationwide study was to estimate the volume-outcome relationship in bariatric surgery at the hospital level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of all patients who underwent bariatric surgery procedure in France from January 2011 to December 2014 was designed. Volume-outcome relationship was analyzed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

We identified 184,332 inpatient stays for bariatric surgical procedures performed in 606 hospitals. Health care institutions performing more than 200 bariatric cases per year were significantly associated with shorter average length of stay (p < 0.001) and less frequent need for intensive or critical care unit (p = 0.003) during the index stay in comparison with lower volume institutions. Reoperations rate increased from 3.1% [95% CI, 2.8-3.3] (n = 5627) at 1 month to 4.9% [4.6-5.2] at 3 months and 8.2% [7.8-8.7] at 6 months. The risk of reoperation after gastric bypass was 1.37 times less frequent in higher volume institutions (≥ 200 inpatient stays per year, p = 0.003), while it was 1.26 times more frequent after gastric banding in higher volume institutions (p = 0.057) and was unaltered regarding sleeve gastrectomy (p = 0.819).

CONCLUSION

This study showed for the first time in bariatric surgery that reoperation rate after gastric bypass or sleeve significantly increased at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Health care institutions performing more than 200 bariatric cases per year were significantly associated with improved postoperative outcomes and less frequent need for reoperation.

Consecutive cycles of hospital accreditation: Persistent low compliance associated with higher mortality and longer length of stay

Objective

To examine the association between compliance with consecutive cycles of accreditation and patient-related outcomes.

Design

A Danish nationwide population-based study from 2012 to 2015.

Setting

In-patients admitted with one of the 80 diagnoses at public, non-psychiatric hospitals.

Participants

In-patients admitted with one of 80 primary diagnoses which accounted for 80% of all deaths occuring within 30 dyas after admission.

Intervention

Admission to a hospital with high (n = 125 485 in-patients) or low compliance (n = 152 074 in-patients) in both cycles of accreditation by the Danish Healthcare Quality Programme.

Main outcome measures

A 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and all-cause acute readmission. We computed adjusted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) using logistic and Cox Proportional Hazard regression including adjustment for six potential patient-related confounders.

Results

The 30-day mortality risk for in-patients admitted at high compliant hospitals was 3.95% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.84-4.06) and 4.39% (95% CI: 4.29-4.49) at low compliant hospitals. In-patients admitted at low compliant hospitals had a substantially higher risk of dying within 30-day after admission (adjusted OR: 1.26 (95% CI: 1.11-1.43) and a longer LOS (adjusted HR of discharge: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) than in-patients at high compliant hospitals. No difference was seen for acute readmission (adjusted HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.90-1.06)). Focusing on the second cycle alone, in-patients at partially accredited hospitals had a higher 30-day mortality risk and longer LOS than admissions at fully accredited hospitals (30-day: adjusted OR: 1.12 (95% CI: 1.02-1.24) and LOS: adjusted HR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.98)).

Conclusion

Persistent low compliance with the DDKM (in Danish: Den Danske Kvalitetsmodel) accreditation was associated with higher 30-day mortality and longer LOS.

The effect of distance on short-term outcomes in a regionalized, publicly funded bariatric surgery model

BACKGROUND

While high-volume Centers of Excellence (COE) for bariatric surgery may have improved clinical outcomes, their disparate distribution results in longer travel distances for patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate effect of distance from COE on outcomes and readmission.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all adults, aged 18 years or older, receiving bariatric surgery from April 2009 to March 2012 in the province of Ontario. Main outcomes included 30-day complication rates and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the impact of distance from patients' primary residence to their bariatric COE on patient outcomes and readmissions.

RESULTS

Five thousand and seven patients were identified, two-thirds residing within 100 km of a COE with a mean distance of 117.2 km. The majority of patients did not reside within a Local Integrated Health Network (LHIN) that contained a COE, while 18.3% of patients lived in rural areas. Using multivariable adjustment, for every 10 km increase from the COE where surgery was performed, the Odds Ratio (OR) for complications was 1.00 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.99-1.01; P = 0.747]. Additionally, both residing in a LHIN without a COE, OR 1.10 (95% CI 0.87-1.40; P = 0.434), and rural status, OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.77-1.23; P = 0.821) showed no increase in risk of complication. Similarly, further distances did not influence rate of readmission, OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00; P = 0.077) nor did rural status OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.97-1.76; P = 0.076).

CONCLUSION

The COE model, where a few centers in high population areas service a large geographic region, is adequate in ensuring patients that live further away receive appropriate short-term care.

ASMBS pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery guidelines, 2018

The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Pediatric Committee updated their evidence-based guidelines published in 2012, performing a comprehensive literature search (2009-2017) with 1387 articles and other supporting evidence through February 2018. The significant increase in data supporting the use of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) in adolescents since 2012 strengthens these guidelines from prior reports. Obesity is recognized as a disease; treatment of severe obesity requires a life-long multidisciplinary approach with combinations of lifestyle changes, nutrition, medications, and MBS. We recommend using modern definitions of severe obesity in children with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention age- and sex-matched growth charts defining class II obesity as 120% of the 95th percentile and class III obesity as 140% of the 95th percentile. Adolescents with class II obesity and a co-morbidity (listed in the guidelines), or with class III obesity should be considered for MBS. Adolescents with cognitive disabilities, a history of mental illness or eating disorders that are treated, immature bone growth, or low Tanner stage should not be denied treatment. MBS is safe and effective in adolescents; given the higher risk of adult obesity that develops in childhood, MBS should not be withheld from adolescents when severe co-morbidities, such as depressed health-related quality of life score, type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis exist. Early intervention can reduce the risk of persistent obesity as well as end organ damage from long standing co-morbidities.

One-Year Mortality after Contemporary Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: An Analysis of the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database

BACKGROUND

Contemporary mortality after bariatric surgery is low and has been decreasing over the past 2 decades. Most studies have reported inpatient or 30-day mortality, which may not represent the true risk of bariatric surgery. The objective of this study was to examine 1-year mortality and factors predictive of 1-year mortality after contemporary laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the 2008 to 2012 Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database (BOLD), data from 158,606 operations were analyzed, including 128,349 (80.9%) laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and 30,257 (19.1%) laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) operations. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine independent risk factors associated with 1-year mortality for each type of procedure.

RESULTS

The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates for LRYGB were 0.13% and 0.23%, respectively, and for LSG were 0.06% and 0.11%, respectively. Risk factors for 1-year mortality included older age (LRYGB: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.05 per year, p < 0.001; LSG: AOR 1.08 per year, p < 0.001); male sex (LRYGB: AOR 1.88, p < 0.001); higher BMI (LRYGB: AOR 1.04 per unit, p < 0.001; LSG: AOR 1.05 per unit, p = 0.009); and the presence of 30-day leak (LRYGB: AOR 25.4, p < 0.001; LSG: AOR 35.8, p < 0.001), 30-day pulmonary embolism (LRYGB: AOR 34.5, p < 0.001; LSG: AOR 252, p < 0.001), and 30-day hemorrhage (LRYGB: AOR 2.34, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary 1-year mortality after laparoscopic bariatric surgery is much lower than previously reported, at <0.25%. It is important to continually refine techniques and perioperative management in order to minimize leaks, hemorrhage, and pulmonary embolus after bariatric surgery because these complications contribute to a higher risk of mortality.

Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Data from IFSO-European Chapter Center of Excellence Program

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to compare sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) performed in Institutions participating in IFSO-European Chapter, Center of Excellence (COE) program.

METHODS

Since the initiation of the program in January 2010, 6413 SGs and 10,622 RYGBPs performed as primary procedures by December 31, 2014, with at least 12-month follow-up, were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

There were steadily increasing numbers of patients underwent SG from 2010 to 2015. Early (<30 days) postoperative complication rate of 3.02 % for RYGBP was significantly higher than 2.12 % seen after SG (p = 0.0006). Only two patients, one in each group, died in the first 30 postoperative days (0.016 % mortality for SG vs 0.009 % for RYGBP-NS). From SG group, 103 patients, 1.61 %, and 206 patients, 1.94 %, from RYGBP group required readmission following hospital discharge in the first 30 days following bariatric surgery-NS. From the readmitted patients in the SG group, 75.72 % were reoperated vs 50.50 % in the RYGBP group (p < 0.0001). SG patients were heavier (BMI 44.93 vs 43.96 kg/m², p < 0.0001). However, significantly better % excess weight loss were seen following RYGBP in all postoperative years (60.36 vs 67.72 %, p = 0.002 at fifth year). Better remission rates were seen for diabetes, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, and sleep apnea syndrome after RYGBP in the first postoperative year.

CONCLUSIONS

Both procedures were performed with very low complications, mortality, readmissions, and reoperations rate. Better weight loss was observed following RYGBP, the first five postoperative years.

Concurrent bariatric operations and association with perioperative outcomes: registry based cohort study

Objective To determine whether perioperative outcomes differ between patients undergoing concurrent compared with non-concurrent bariatric operations in the USA.Design Retrospective, propensity score matched cohort study.Setting Hospitals in the US accredited by the American College of Surgeons' metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program.Participants 513 167 patients undergoing bariatric operations between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016.Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was a composite of 30 day death, morbidity, readmission, reoperation, anastomotic or staple line leak, and bleeding events. Operative duration and lengths of stay were also assessed. Operations were defined as concurrent if they overlapped by 60 or more minutes or in their entirety.Results In this study of 513 167 operations, 739 (29.5%) surgeons at 483 (57.8%) hospitals performed 6087 (1.2%) concurrent operations. The most frequently performed concurrent bariatric operations were sleeve gastrectomy (n=3250, 53.4%) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n=1601, 26.3%). Concurrent operations were more often performed at large academic medical centers with higher operative volumes and numbers of trainees and by higher volume surgeons. Compared with non-concurrent operations, concurrent operations lasted a median of 34 minutes longer (P<0.001) and resulted in 0.3 days longer average length of stay (P<0.001). Perioperative adverse events were not observed to more likely occur in concurrent compared with non-concurrent operations (7.5% v 7.4%; relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.15; P=0.84).Conclusions Concurrent bariatric operations occurred infrequently, but when they did, there was no observable increased risk for adverse perioperative outcomes compared with non-concurrent operations. These results, however, do not argue against improved and more meaningful disclosure of concurrent surgery practices.

Outcomes after bariatric surgery according to large databases: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The rapid development of technological tools to record data allows storage of enormous datasets, often termed "big data". In the USA, three large databases have been developed to store data regarding surgical outcomes: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of studies found in these databases concerning outcomes of bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Research carried out using the PubMed database identified 362 papers. All outcomes related to bariatric surgery were analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies, published between 2005 and February 2017, were included. These articles were divided into (1) outcomes related to surgical techniques (12 articles), (2) morbidity and mortality (12), (3) 30-day hospital readmission (10), (4) outcomes related to specific diseases (11), (5) training (2) and (6) socio-economic and ethnic observations in bariatric surgery (7). Forty-two papers were based on data from ACS-NSQIP, nine on data from NIS and three on data from MBSAQIP.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides an overview of surgical management and outcomes of bariatric surgery in the USA. Large databases offer useful complementary information that could be considered external validation when strong evidence-based medicine data are lacking. They also allow us to evaluate infrequent situations for which randomized control trials are not feasible and add specific information that can complement the quality of surgical knowledge.

Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Initiatives in Contemporary Metabolic and Bariatric Surgical Practice

Patient safety and quality improvement have been part of bariatric surgery since its inception, and there have been significant improvements in outcomes of bariatric surgery over the past 2 decades. A strong accreditation program exists. This program defines 2 tiers of accredited centers: low-acuity and comprehensive centers similar to the trauma systems. Accreditation has been shown to have a favorable impact on outcomes of bariatric surgery. Bariatric surgery lends itself well to improvements in processes and use of perioperative protocols, such as ulcer and thromboembolic prophylaxis prevention or gallstone prevention and management.

Effect of accreditation on length of stay in psychiatric inpatients: pre-post accreditation medical record comparison

Background

An interest in hospital accreditation is growing rapidly among many countries to enhance the quality of health care services. The literature showed a positive association between accreditation and some processes of health care. One of the main factors that influence bed availability is the length of hospital stay (LOS), which is considered as an important indicator of the quality of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. We aimed to investigate whether hospital accreditation drives improvements for the length of stay in psychiatric inpatients.

Methods

The study reviewed medical records of consecutive hospital admissions for pre- and post-accreditation comparisons of LOS in two acute mental health wards at a teaching general hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data obtained from the 12-month-post-accreditation period (July 2011 to June 2012) were compared with those from the 12-month-pre-accreditation period (July 2009 to June 2010). The adoption of accreditation program occurred over a 12-month period in the middle of the study (July 2010 to June 2011). Compiled information included demographics, diagnosis, assessment, and LOS. All identified charts were reviewed; there were no exclusion criteria. Patients were not contacted.

Results

Post-accreditation, the mean (SD) length of stay was 35.3 ± 18.5 days and the range was 3–113 days. Whereas in the pre-accreditation period the mean (SD) length of stay was 41.1 ± 29.5 days and the range was 1–167 days. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.026).

Conclusion

Accreditation reduces excess LOS and contributes to improving the quality of psychiatric inpatient care and access to psychiatric beds.

A systematic review of hospital accreditation: the challenges of measuring complex intervention effects

Background

The increased international focus on improving patient outcomes, safety and quality of care has led stakeholders, policy makers and healthcare provider organizations to adopt standardized processes for evaluating healthcare organizations. Accreditation and certification have been proposed as interventions to support patient safety and high quality healthcare. Guidelines recommend accreditation but are cautious about the evidence, judged as inconclusive. The push for accreditation continues despite sparse evidence to support its efficiency or effectiveness.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes and keyword searches in any language. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and AMSTAR framework. 915 abstracts were screened and 20 papers were reviewed in full in January 2013. Inclusion criteria included studies addressing the effect of hospital accreditation and certification using systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies with a control group, or interrupted time series. Outcomes included both clinical outcomes and process measures. An updated literature search in July 2014 identified no new studies.

Results

The literature review uncovered three systematic reviews and one randomized controlled trial. The lone study assessed the effects of accreditation on hospital outcomes and reported inconsistent results. Excluded studies were reviewed and their findings summarized.

Conclusion

Accreditation continues to grow internationally but due to scant evidence, no conclusions could be reached to support its effectiveness. Our review did not find evidence to support accreditation and certification of hospitals being linked to measurable changes in quality of care as measured by quality metrics and standards. Most studies did not report intervention context, implementation, or cost. This might reflect the challenges in assessing complex, heterogeneous interventions such as accreditation and certification. It is also may be magnified by the impact of how accreditation is managed and executed, and the varied financial and organizational healthcare constraints. The strategies hospitals should impelment to improve patient safety and organizational outcomes related to accreditation and certification components remains unclear.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0933-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Does hospital accreditation impact bariatric surgery safety?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of hospital accreditation upon bariatric surgery outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Since 2004, the American College of Surgeons and the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery have accredited bariatric hospitals. Few studies have evaluated the impact of hospital accreditation on all bariatric surgery outcomes.

METHODS

Bariatric surgery hospitalizations were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9) codes in the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Hospital names and American Hospital Association (AHA) codes were used to identify accredited bariatric centers. Relevant ICD9 codes were used for identifying demographics, length of stay (LOS), total charges, mortality, complications, and failure to rescue (FTR) events.

RESULTS

There were 117,478 weighted bariatric patient discharges corresponding to 235 unique hospitals in the 2010 NIS data set. A total of 72,615 (61.8%) weighted discharges, corresponding to 145 (61.7%) named or AHA-identifiable hospitals were included. Among the 145 hospitals, 66 (45.5%) were unaccredited and 79 (54.5%) accredited. Compared with accredited centers, unaccredited centers had a higher mean LOS (2.25 vs 1.99 days, P < 0.0001), as well as total charges ($51,189 vs $42,212, P < 0.0001). Incidence of any complication was higher at unaccredited centers than at accredited centers (12.3% vs 11.3%, P = 0.001), as was mortality (0.13% vs 0.07%, P = 0.019) and FTR (0.97% vs 0.55%, P = 0.046). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified unaccredited status as a positive predictor of incidence of complication [odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, P < 0.0001], as well as mortality (OR = 2.13, P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Hospital accreditation status is associated with safer outcomes, shorter LOS, and lower total charges after bariatric surgery.

Predicting potentially preventable hospital readmissions following bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Using hospital readmissions as a quality of care measure predicates that some readmissions were preventable.

OBJECTIVES

This study identifies predictors of potentially preventable readmissions (PPR) within 30 days of bariatric surgery discharge.

SETTING

New York State acute care hospitals.

METHODS

Adult inpatient surgical discharges, during 2012, with a principal diagnosis of overweight or obesity and a principal procedure for bariatric surgery were identified. Logistic regression was used to evaluate surgical approach, sex, age, race/ethnicity, payor, body mass index, complications and co-morbidities recorded during the surgical admission.

RESULTS

There were 10,448 surgeries studied for readmission of which 552 were followed by a PPR, for a statewide rate of 5.3 per 100 surgeries. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) was the most common surgical approach (46.0%), then Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) (41.3%), Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band (LAGB) (8.1%), and Open Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) (4.6%). RYGB had the highest PPR rate (8.8), followed by LRYGB (6.1), SG (4.3) and LAGB (3.3). Compared to LAGB, the odds of a PPR in patients with RYGB, LRYGB, and SG increased by 2.4 fold, 1.8 fold and 1.2 fold respectively. Black, non-Hispanic patients were at a greater risk of PPR (odds-ratio 2.0, P<.0001) compared to White, non-Hispanic patients while the risk of a PPR increased by 2-fold in patients with a surgical complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking all patient risk factors into account, the most significant predictors of a PPR were surgical approach, race and the presence of a surgical complication.