Natural history of morbid obesity without surgical intervention.

BACKGROUND: To study the mortality among morbidly obese patients qualifying for bariatric surgery. Mortality from bariatric surgery for morbid obesity has been widely reported; however, little is known about the mortality in morbidly obese patients who defer surgery. METHODS: Consecutive patients evaluated for bariatric surgery with an initial encounter between 1997 and 2004 were identified. The Social Security Death Index and office records were used to identify mortality through 2006. We conducted telephone interviews to determine whether the 305 patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery at our institution had undergone the surgery elsewhere. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we compared the mortality in patients undergoing surgery with that of those who did not. To evaluate bias resulting from missing data, we conducted analyses assuming that all patients with missing data had (1) undergone surgery and (2) not undergone surgery. RESULTS: A total of 908 patients underwent bariatric surgery (880 patients at our institution and 28 patients elsewhere). A total of 112 patients did not undergo surgery. Data regarding surgery on 165 patients could not be obtained. The mortality in those patients who did not undergo surgery was 14.3% compared with 2.9% for those who did undergo surgery. Adjusting for age, gender, and body mass index, patients who had undergone surgery had an 82% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.35, P <.0001). Sensitivity analysis, assuming that all patients with missing data received surgery resulted in an 85% mortality reduction (P <.001) and assuming that patients did not receive surgery resulted in a 50% mortality reduction (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality among morbidly obese patients without surgery was 14.3% during the study period. Surgical intervention offered a 50%-85% mortality reduction benefit.

An observational study examining the impact of capecitabine on warfarin antithrombotic activity and bleeding complications.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to quantify the frequency of concomitant use of capecitabine and warfarin, and to quantify the rate of bleeding events and elevated international normalized ratio (INR) among concomitant users of warfarin and capecitabine. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based study within the Henry Ford Health System (Detroit, MI) and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California (Oakland, CA). The study population included patients prescribed concomitant capecitabine and warfarin from 1 April 1997 through 31 July 2002. Data from the medical records of concurrent users were extracted through 31 August 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concomitant use of capecitabine and warfarin, bleeding events, and INR laboratory results, collected from computerized databases and medical record review. RESULTS: Overall, 11% of capecitabine users also received warfarin (99 / 883). Among 17 patients who received warfarin for venous access device prophylaxis, one bleeding event occurred during concomitant capecitabine/warfarin use (rate = 35.7 bleeding events per 100 person-years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-198.9), and no events occurred during use of warfarin alone (95% CI 0.0-136.2) (p = 0.50). Among patients prescribed warfarin for indications other than port prophylaxis, no bleeding events occurred during concomitant use of capecitabine and warfarin (95% CI 0.0-34.6), and one event occurred during warfarin use alone (rate = 9.2 bleeding events per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.2-51.3) (p = 0.54). We found one INR elevation > 3.0 among concomitant capecitabine/warfarin users receiving warfarin for port prophylaxis (rate = 35.7 per 100 person-years) and no INR elevations > 3.0 during use of warfarin alone (p = 0.46). Among patients using warfarin for indications other than port prophylaxis, the rates of INR > 3.0 were 309.7 per 100 person-years (95% CI 213.2-434.9) during concomitant capecitabine/warfarin use and 193.5 events per 100 person-years (95% CI 119.8-295.8) during use of warfarin alone (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study show a low prevalence of capecitabine and warfarin concomitant use. We did not find large differences in the rates of bleeding events and elevated INR in patients receiving concomitant capecitabine and warfarin when compared with use of warfarin alone. While these results do not imply a lack of biologic interaction, our findings indicate that patients appear to be appropriately managed in clinical practice.

Hand-Assisted laparoscopic Surgery.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) has been sporadically described in the past to assist the surgeon during operations of complexity or when operations require specimen removal. The hand will offer the surgeon an advantage in terms of tactile feedback, exposure, retraction, or orientation so that it will enable him or her to operate with greater safety and efficiency. The fundamental pre-requisite for successful HALS is a reliable hand-assist device. We perform HALS for complex advanced laparoscopic surgery where it may save time, increase accuracy and improve safety. Additionally, this approach is considered for any operation that requires specimen removal, since an enlarged incision may be required. Early introduction of the hand may facilitate dissection and specimen removal.

New Device for Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery has undergone a rapid evolution since the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy of Erich Mühe in 1985. Many surgeons felt that further technological success would be related not only to increasing experience and skill of surgeons, but also technological advances which would enable surgeons to perform increasingly more difficult and complex tasks. Progress has been rapid for some, but broad acceptance by surgeons has been slow.

Treatment and referral patterns for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer stages III, and IV; however, it has been shown that only 45-55% of these patients receive chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe treatment patterns for patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and to examine the reasons why patients do not receive chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Patients included newly diagnosed cases of colorectal cancer at a health maintenance organization in central Massachusetts between January 1, 1997, and June 30, 1999. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was a referral or visit to an oncologist. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent (n=143) of the 217 colorectal cancer cases had a referral/visit to an oncologist or evidence of chemotherapy within 4 months of the index date. The referral rates by stage were: stage I, 47.7%; stage II, 59.5%; stage III, 87.1%; and stage IV, 66.7%. Of patients not referred with stage III disease, 4/8 were not referred because the treating physician did not recommend an oncology referral; patient refusal accounted for 3/8 (37.5%). The most commonly cited reason for lack of referral for stage IV patients was existing comorbidities or death. Younger age (<70 years) and stage III at diagnosis were significant predictors of oncology referral/visit. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of colorectal cancer patients are receiving appropriate referral for chemotherapy. This study is the first to elucidate reasons why patients do not receive chemotherapy and highlights both patient and physician factors.