Religious Fasting of Muslim Patients After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: a Modified Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars of the Muslim faith. Despite the positive effects of fasting on health, there are no guidelines or clear recommendations regarding fasting after metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS). The current study reports the result of a modified Delphi consensus among expert metabolic/bariatric surgeons with experience in managing patients who fast after MBS. METHODS: A committee of 61 well-known metabolic and bariatric surgeons from 24 countries was created to participate in the Delphi consensus. The committee voted on 45 statements regarding recommendations and controversies around fasting after MBS. An agreement/disagreement ≥ of 70.0% was regarded as consensus. RESULTS: The experts reached a consensus on 40 out of 45 statements after two rounds of voting. One hundred percent of the experts believed that fasting needs special nutritional support in patients who underwent MBS. The decision regarding fasting must be coordinated among the surgeon, the nutritionist and the patient. At any time after MBS, 96.7% advised stopping fasting in the presence of persistent symptoms of intolerance. Seventy percent of the experts recommended delaying fasting after MBS for 6 to 12 months after combined and malabsorptive procedures according to the patient's situation and surgeon's experience, and 90.1% felt that proton pump inhibitors should be continued in patients who start fasting less than 6 months after MBS. There was consensus that fasting may help in weight loss, improvement/remission of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus among 88.5%, 90.2%, 88.5%, 85.2% and 85.2% of experts, respectively. CONCLUSION: Experts voted and reached a consensus on 40 statements covering various aspects of fasting after MBS.

First Successful Large-Scale Introduction of an Enhanced Recovery after Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) Program in the Middle East: The Results and Lessons Learned of Tawam Hospital/Johns Hopkins, a Tertiary Governmental Center in the UAE.

BACKGROUND: Although enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery (ERABS) has proven to be safe and cost-effective, this concept is relatively new in the Middle East. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive registered cohorts of patients who underwent primary and purely laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) were compared before introduction of ERABS (2010-2014) and after ERABS (2015-2017) at Tawam Hospital/Johns Hopkins, the UAE. RESULTS: A total of 462 eligible bariatric patients (LSG 414 and LRYGB 48) were operated on before and 1602 (LSG 1436 and LRYGB 166) after introduction of the ERABS. Significant improvements of mean patient time of the patient being within the OR for LSG (from 2:27 to 1:23 min, p = 0.000) and LRYGB (from 3:17 to 1:59 min, p = 0.000) were achieved when comparing pre-ERABS with after introduction of ERABS. Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in LOS in both LSG (from 3.2 to 1.5 days, p = 0.000) and in LRYGB (from 3.5 to 1.7 days, p = 0.000). Major (CD classification III-IV) complications decreased significantly in LSG (from 13.8 to 0.8%, p = 0.000) and were similar in LRYGB (from 4.2% to 3.0%, p = NS). The readmission rate for LSG (from 2.9 to 2.6%, p = NS) or LRYGB (from 0 to 4.8%, p = NS) and the reoperation rates after LSG (from 0.7 to 0.5%, p = NS) and LRYGB (from 0 to 2.4%, p = NS) did not differ between both groups following introduction of ERABS. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a standardized ERABS program in the Middle East is feasible and safe and leads to reduced LOS and OR times.

GFR estimation in the morbidly obese pre- and postbariatric surgery: one size does not fit all.

BACKGROUND: Glomerular hyperfiltration commonly associated with obesity is expected to improve postbariatric surgery. However, formula-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation in these patients is limited by body size confounders necessitating use of modified equations, the reliability of which remains uncertain. METHODS: In this study, various GFR-estimating formulae were compared in morbidly obese patients at baseline and postbariatric surgery. Through a retrospective chart review, we identified 220 patients who had undergone this procedure, with over 6-month follow-up, during which major weight reduction was achieved. RESULTS: A significant decrease in BP and glomerular hyperfiltration was observed, though there was large variability in GFR estimation using the different formulae. Gross over and underestimation was observed which improved with correction for body size confounders especially lean body weight (LBW). Postoperatively, significant attenuation in estimated GFR was demonstrated when LBW or body surface area-adjusted versions were used. In a subgroup of patients with chronic kidney disease, a significant improvement in GFR was seen postoperatively with the LBW-modified formula but there were again inconsistencies when using other equations. CONCLUSION: Though clinicians must be critical in the application of GFR estimates to patient care, LBW adjustment appears to be the most practical solution to its estimation in the obese patients. This is particularly true for patients with normal renal function but appears to be also applicable to those with compromised kidney function. Future studies are needed to compare these equations with a gold standard GFR measure as well as to explore whether the renal benefits from bariatric surgery are sustained or seen in more advanced CKD stages.