Complications of feeding jejunostomy placement: a single-institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy is an alternative route of enteral nutrition in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal operations when a feeding gastrostomy is not suitable. METHODS: A single institution review of patients who underwent open or laparoscopic jejunostomy tube (JT) placement between 2009 and 2019 was performed. Data collected included demographics, preoperative serum albumin, surgery indication, concomitancy of procedure, size of JT tube and time to its removal. JT complications were analyzed in the early postoperative period (< 30 days) and in a long-term follow-up (> 30 days). The Chi-square test was used to compare rates of complications according to tube size. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients underwent JT placement, and gastroesophageal cancer (n = 48, 65.7%) was the most common indication. The JT was most frequently placed concomitantly (n = 56, 76.7%) to the primary operation and through a laparoscopic approach (n = 66, 90.4%). A total of 14 patients (19.1%) had early complications and 15 had late complications (20.5%). The reasons for early complications were clogged JT (n = 8, 10.9%), JT dislodgement (n = 3, 4.1%), leakage (n = 2, 2.7%), small bowel obstruction adjacent to the site of the jejunostomy tube (n = 2, 2.7%), JT site infection (n = 1, 1.3%), and intraperitoneal JT displacement (n = 1, 1.3%). The reasons for late complications were clogged JT (n = 6, 8.2%), JT dislodgement (n = 6, 8.2%), JT site infection (n = 3, 4.1%), and JT leakage (n = 1, 1.3%). There was no procedure-related mortality in this series. However, 12 patients (16.4%) died due to their baseline disease. The mean time to tube removal was 83.4 ± 93.6 days. The most frequently used JT size was 14 French (n = 39, 53.4%) but in nine patients the tube size was not reported. No statistical significance (p = 0.75) was found when comparing the two most commonly used sizes to rates of complications. CONCLUSION: The rate of JT complications in our study is comparable to other published reports in literature. As an alternative route for nutritional status optimization, the procedure appears to be safe despite the number of complications.

Is bariatric surgery safe in patients with history of cardiac revascularization?

BACKGROUND: The number of patients undergoing bariatric surgery with prior cardiac revascularization (CR) is rising. However, scarce data exist regarding the safety of bariatric procedures in these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare postoperative cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes among patients with different CR procedures. SETTING: Academic hospital, United States. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 2884 patients undergoing bariatric surgery from 2009-2018. Patients with prior CR were included and stratified into groups: coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention with stent (PCI), and CABG + PCI. We described patient demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, smoking status, history of myocardial infarction, type of bariatric surgery, number of vessels grafted/stents, time from CR to bariatric surgery, length of stay, and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular 30-day outcomes. A control group composed of patients without prior CR undergoing bariatric surgery was used to compare the rate of complications to the total patients with prior CR. For continuous and categorical variables, t test and χ2 tests were performed, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 76 patients with prior CR undergoing bariatric surgery. The mean patient age was 61.4 ± 7.9 years, the mean body mass index was 41.7 ± 6.5 kg/m2, and male sex was predominant (71.1%). Among these, 50% (n = 38) had PCI, 39.4% (n = 30) had CABG, and 10.5% (n = 8) had CABG + PCI. Early cardiovascular complications rate included ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n = 2), pulmonary embolism (n = 1), supraventricular arrhythmia (n = 2), ventricular arrhythmia (n = 1), and pacemaker/defibrillator-insertion (n = 1). The overall rate of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular complications was 9.2% (n = 7) and 10.5% (n = 8) during the 30 days. Mortality rate was 0%. Comparison of rate of complications between groups did not show any statistical difference; no significant difference was found when comparing patients with prior CR to the 76 patients in the control group (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although revascularized individuals have severe co-morbidities and are high-risk patients, bariatric surgery remains safe in this population when outcomes are compared with bariatric patients without prior CR.

Bariatric surgery decreases the number of first-time hospital admissions for cancer in severely obese patients. A retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database.

BACKGROUND: According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, cancers linked to overweight or obesity accounted for roughly 40% of all U.S. malignancies in 2014. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this epidemiologic study was to assess whether bariatric surgery might have any preventative role against obesity-linked cancers among individuals with obesity. SETTING: Hospitals across the United States participating in the National Inpatient Sample database, created, updated, and monitored by the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. METHODS: National Inpatient Sample data collected from 2010 to 2014 were examined to identify any difference in the number of first cancer-related hospitalizations, as a proxy for cancer incidence, between patients with a history of prior bariatric surgery (cases) and those without (controls). Patients with any prior cancer diagnosis were excluded. To match the body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 generally required for bariatric surgery, all controls had to have a body mass index ≥35 kg/m2. International Classification of Diseases-9 codes were employed to identify admissions for 13 obesity-linked cancers. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any case-control differences, after matching for all baseline demographic, co-morbidity, and cancer risk-factor variables. All percentages and means (with confidence intervals) were weighted, per Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project guidelines. RESULTS: Among 1,590,579 controls and 247,015 bariatric surgery cases, there were 29,822 (1.93%; 95% confidence interval 1.91-1.96) and 3540 (1.43%; 1.38-1.47) first hospitalizations for cancer (adjusted odds ratio 1.17; 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings from a large U.S. database suggest that bariatric surgery may reduce the incidence of cancer in patients considered at high risk because of severe obesity.