Including socioeconomic status reduces readmission penalties to safety-net hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financially penalizes "excessive" postoperative readmissions. Concerned with creating a double standard for institutions treating a high percentage of economically vulnerable patients, Medicare elected to exclude socioeconomic status (SES) from its risk-adjustment model. However, recent evidence suggests that safety-net hospitals (SNHs) caring for many low-SES patients are disproportionately penalized under the HRRP. We sought to simulate the impact of including SES-sensitive models on HRRP penalties for hospitals performing lower extremity revascularization (LER). METHODS: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of national data on Medicare patients undergoing open or endovascular LER procedures between 2007 and 2009. We used hierarchical logistic regression to generate hospital risk-standardized 30-day readmission rates under Medicare's current model (adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and procedure type) compared with models that also adjust for SES. We estimated the likelihood of a penalty and penalty size for SNHs compared with non-SNHs under the current Medicare model and these SES-sensitive models. RESULTS: Our study population comprised 1708 hospitals performing 284,724 LER operations with an overall unadjusted readmission rate of 14.4% (standard deviation: 5.3%). Compared with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services model, adjusting for SES would not change the proportion of SNHs penalized for excess readmissions (55.1% vs 53.4%, P = .101) but would reduce penalty amounts for 38% of SNHs compared with only 17% of non-SNHs, P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: For LER, changing national Medicare policy to including SES in readmission risk-adjustment models would reduce penalty amounts to SNHs, especially for those that are also teaching institutions. Making further strides toward reducing the national disparity between SNHs and non-SHNs on readmissions, performance measures require strategies beyond simply altering the risk-adjustment model to include SES.

Barriers to Participation in a Structured Quality Improvement Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Emergency Department Visits-A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Barriers to quality improvement (QI) initiatives in multi-institutional hospital settings are understudied. Here we describe a qualitative investigation of factors negatively affecting a QI initiative focused on reducing avoidable emergency department (ED) visits after bariatric surgery across 17 hospitals. Our goal was to explore participant perspectives and identify themes describing why the program was not effectively implemented or why the program may have been ineffective when correctly implemented. METHODS: We performed semistructured group interviews with 17 sites (42 interviews) participating in a statewide bariatric QI program. We used descriptive content analysis to identify challenges, facilitators, and barriers to implementation of the QI program. All analyses were conducted using MAXQDA software. RESULTS: Results revealed barriers across hospitals related to four themes: buy-in, provider accessibility, resources at participating hospitals, and patient barriers to care. In particular, the initiative faced difficulty if it was not well-matched to the factors driving increasing ED visits at a particular site, such as lack of patient access to outpatient or primary care. Additional challenges occurred if the initiative was not adapted and customized to the working systems in place at each site, involving employees, surgeons, support staff, and leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings can direct future focused efforts aimed at site-specific interventions to reduce unnecessary postoperative ED visits. Results demonstrated a need for a nuanced approach that can be adapted based on facility needs and resources.

From Alpha to Omicron and Beyond: Associations Between SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Surgical Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced surgical practices, with SARS-CoV-2 variants presenting unique pathologic profiles and potential impacts on perioperative outcomes. This study explores associations between Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 and surgical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative database, which included patients who underwent selected major inpatient surgeries within eight weeks post-SARS-CoV-2 infection from January 2020 to April 2023. The viral variant was determined by the predominant strain at the time of the patient's infection. Multivariable logistic regression models explored the association between viral variants, COVID-19 severity, and 30-d major morbidity or mortality. RESULTS: The study included 10,617 surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19, infected by the Alpha (4456), Delta (1539), and Omicron (4622) variants. Patients infected with Omicron had the highest vaccination rates, most mild disease, and lowest 30-d morbidity and mortality rates. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that Omicron was linked to a reduced likelihood of adverse outcomes compared to Alpha, while Delta showed odds comparable to Alpha. Inclusion of COVID-19 severity in the model rendered the odds of major morbidity or mortality equal across all three variants. CONCLUSIONS: Our study examines the associations between the clinical and pathological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 variants and surgical outcomes. As novel SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge, this research supports COVID-19-related surgical policy that assesses the severity of disease to estimate surgical outcomes.

Financial Incentives to Improve Patient Follow-up and Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To examine effects of a financial incentives program on follow-up and weight loss after bariatric surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Consistent follow-up may improve weight loss and other health outcomes after bariatric surgery. Yet, rates of follow-up after surgery are often low. METHODS: Patients from 3 practices within a statewide collaborative were invited to participate in a 6-month financial incentives program. Participants received incentives for attending postoperative appointments at 1, 3, and 6 months which doubled when participants weighed less than their prior visit. Participants were matched with contemporary patients from control practices by demographics, starting body mass index and weight, surgery date, and procedure. Preintervention estimates used matched historic patients from the same program and control practices with the criteria listed above. Patients between the 2 historic groups were additionally matched on surgery date to ensure balance on matched variables. We conducted differ-ence-in-differences analyses to examine incentives program effects. Follow-up attendance and percent excess weight loss were measured postoperative months 1, 3, 6, and 12. RESULTS: One hundred ten program participants from January 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019 were matched to 203 historic program practice patients (November 20 to December 27, 2017). The control group had 273 preinter-vention patients and 327 postintervention patients. In difference-in-differ-ences analyses, the intervention increased follow-up rates at 1 month (+14.8%, P <0.0001), 3months (+29.4%, P <0.0001), and 6 months (+16.4%, P <0.0001), but not at 12 months. There were no statistically significant differences in excess weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: A financial incentives program significantly increased follow-up after bariatric surgery for up to 6 months, but did not increase weight loss. Our study supports use of incentivized approaches as one way to improve postoperative follow-up, but may not translate into greater weight loss without additional supports.

Rescue Improvement Conference: A Novel Tool for Addressing Failure to Rescue.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the effectiveness of Rescue Improvement Conference, a forum that addresses FTR. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Every year over 150,000 patients die after elective surgery in the United States. FTR is the phenomenon whereby delayed recognition and/or response to serious surgical complications leads to a progressive cascade of adverse events culminating in death. Rescue Improvement Conference is an adapted version of the Ottawa-style morbidity and mortality conference, designed to address common contributors to FTR: ineffective communication and inadequate problem solving. METHODS: Mixed methods data were used to evaluate Rescue Improvement Conference, a bi-monthly forum that was first introduced in our academic medical center in 2018. Conference effectiveness data were collected via survey and open-text responses after 5 conferences between September 2018 and February 2020. We focused on 5 indicators of effectiveness: educational value, conference takeaways, discussion time, changes to surgical practice, and actionable opportunities for improvement. Twelve surgical faculty and house staff also provided feedback during semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Conference attendees (N = 140) felt that Rescue Improvement Conference was effective-all 5 indicators had mean scores above 5 on Likert scales. The qualitative data supports the quantitative findings, and 3 additional themes emerged: Rescue Improvement Conference enables the representation of diverse voices, promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, and encourages multilevel problem solving. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue Improvement Conference has the potential to support other surgical departments in developing system-level strategies to recognize and manage postoperative complications by providing stakeholders a forum to identify and discuss factors that contribute to FTR.

Cost-effectiveness of Staple Line Reinforcement in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of staple-line reinforcement in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Exponential increases in surgical costs have underscored the critical need for evidence-based methods to determine the relative value of surgical devices. One such device is staple-line reinforcement, thought to decrease bleeding rates in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: Two intervention arms were modeled, staple-line reinforcement and standard nonreinforced stapling. Bleed and leak rates and 30-day treatment costs were obtained from national and state registries. Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values were drawn from previous literature. Device prices were drawn from institutional data. A final incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 346,530 patient records from 2012 to 2018 were included. Complication rates for the reinforced and standard cohorts were 0.05% for major bleed in both cohorts ( P = 0.8841); 0.45% compared with 0.59% for minor bleed ( P < 0.0001); and 0.24% compared with 0.26% for leak ( P = 0.4812). Median cost for a major bleed was $5552 ($3287, $16,817) and $2406 ($1861, $3484) for a minor bleed. Median leak cost was $9897 ($4589, $21,619) and median cost for patients who did not experience a bleed, leak, or other serious complication was $1908 ($1712, $2739). Mean incremental cost of reinforced stapling compared with standard was $819.60/surgery. Net QALY gain with reinforced stapling compared with standard was 0.00002. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $40,553,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses failed to produce a value below $150,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard stapling, reinforced stapling reduces minor postoperative bleeding but not major bleeding or leaks and is not cost-effective if routinely used in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Evaluating outcomes among surgeons who changed their technique for gastric bypass: a state-wide analysis from 2011 to 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Technical variation exists when performing the gastrojejunostomy during Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). However, it is unclear whether changing technique results in improved outcomes or patient harm. METHODS: Surgeons participating in a state-wide bariatric surgery quality collaborative who completed a survey on how they perform a typical RYGB in 2011 and again in 2021 were included in the analysis (n = 31). Risk-adjusted 30-day complication rates and case characteristics for cases in 2011 were compared to those in 2021 among surgeons who changed their gastrojejunostomy technique from end-to-end anastomosis (EEA) to either a linear staple or handsewn anastomosis (LSA/HSA). In addition, case characteristics and outcomes among surgeons who maintained an EEA technique throughout the study period were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 15 surgeons (48.3%) changed their technique from EEA to LSA/HSA while 7 surgeons (22.3%) did not. Nine surgeons did LSA or HSA the entire period and therefore were not included. Surgeons who changed their technique had significantly lower rates of surgical complications in 2021 when compared to 2011 (1.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.0015), including lower rates of wound complications (0.5% vs 2.1%, p = 0.0030) and stricture (0.1% vs 0.5%, p = 0.0533). Likewise, surgeons who did not change their EEA technique, also experienced a decrease in surgical complications (1.8% vs 5.8%, p < 0.0001), wound complications (0.7% vs 2.1%, p < 0.0001) and strictures (0.2% vs 1.2%, p = 0.0006). Surgeons who changed their technique had a significantly higher mean annual robotic bariatric volume in 2021 (30.0 cases vs 4.9 cases, p < 0.0001) when compared to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons who changed their gastrojejunostomy technique from circular stapled to handsewn demonstrated greater utilization of the robotic platform than those who did not and experienced a similar decrease in adverse events during the study period, despite altering their technique. Surgeons who chose to modify their operative technique may be more likely to adopt newer technologies.

Association of program-specific variation in bariatric surgery volume for Medicaid patients and access to care: a tale of inequality?

BACKGROUND: Although patients with lower socioeconomic status are at higher risk of obesity, bariatric surgery utilization among patients with Medicaid is low and may be due to program-specific variation in access. Our goal was to compare bariatric surgery programs by percentage of Medicaid cases and to determine if variation in distribution of patients with Medicaid could be linked to adverse outcomes. METHODS: Using a state-wide bariatric-specific data registry that included 43 programs performing 97,207 cases between 2006 and 2020, we identified all patients with Medicaid insurance (n = 4780, 4.9%). Bariatric surgery programs were stratified into quartiles according to the percentage of Medicaid cases performed and we compared program-specific characteristics as well as baseline patient characteristics, risk-adjusted complication rates and wait times between top and bottom quartiles. RESULTS: Program-specific distribution of Medicaid cases varied between 0.69 and 22.4%. Programs in the top quartile (n = 11) performed 18,885 cases in total, with a mean of 13% for Medicaid patients, while programs in the bottom quartile (n = 11) performed 32,447 cases in total, with a mean of 1%. Patients undergoing surgery at programs in the top quartile were more likely to be Black (20.2% vs 13.5%, p < 0.0001), have diabetes (35.1% vs 29.5%, p < 0.0001), hypertension (55.1% vs 49.6%, p < 0.0001) and hyperlipidemia (47.6% vs 45.2%, p < 0.0001). Top quartile programs also had higher complication rates (8.4% vs 6.6%, p < 0.0001), extended length of stay (5.6% vs 4.0%, p < 0.0001), Emergency Department visits (8.1% vs 6.5%, p < 0.0001) and readmissions (4.7% vs 3.9%, p < 0.0001). Median time from initial evaluation to surgery date was also significantly longer among top quartile programs (200 vs 122 days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery programs that perform a higher proportion of Medicaid cases tend to care for patients with greater disease severity who experience delays in care and also require more resource utilization. Improving bariatric surgery utilization among patients with lower socioeconomic status may benefit from insurance standardization and program-centered incentives to improve access and equitable distribution of care.

Comparing Diabetes Outcomes: Weight-independent Effects of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Matched Patients With Similar Weight Loss.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if sleeve gastrectomy has weight-independent benefits on diabetes outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Weight loss is recommended when treating conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Bariatric surgery has been shown to improve or resolve metabolic conditions, but weight loss outcomes vary by procedure type. METHODS: Using data from a statewide bariatric surgery registry, a total of 988 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of diabetes who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) were included in the study. The patients were matched based on age, race, sex, preoperative body mass index (BMi) and weight loss at 1 year after surgery. Chi-square comparisons were conducted for medication discontinuation for diabetes. Secondary outcome measures included discontinuation of medications for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 53.9 years, 75.5% were female, 89.3% were White. Mean preoperative BMi was 44.8 kg/m2 and 75.7% had noninsulin dependent diabetes, whereas 24.3% had insulin dependent diabetes. Mean % BMi loss at 1 year is similar between the 2 groups (8.3% vs 8.1%, P = 0.3811). LSG patients had significantly higher rates of discontinuation of oral diabetes medication (70.4% vs 46.0%, P < 0.0001), insulin (51.7% vs 38.3%, P = 0.0341), anti-hypertensive (41.1% vs 26.0%, P < 0.0001), and cholesterol-lowering medications (40.1% vs 27.8%, P = 0.0016) when compared to LAGB patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar preoperative characteristics and postoperative weight loss, LSG patients experienced significantly higher rates of medication discontinuation for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia than LAGB. These results suggest that LSG may have weight-independent effects on metabolic disease and should be considered in the treatment of diabetes, regardless of perceived weight loss outcomes.

Patient-reported Comorbidity Assessment After Bariatric Surgery: A Potential Tool to Improve Longitudinal Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of postoperative patient-reported comorbidity assessment, as it may be an important mechanism for long-term follow-up in surgical patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Less than 1% of patients who qualify actually undergo bariatric surgery which may be due to concerns surrounding long-term efficacy. Longitudinal follow-up of patients' comorbidities remains a challenge. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of bariatric surgery patients from 38 sites within a state-wide collaborative from 2017 to 2018. A minimum of 10 and maximum of 20 responses to a 1-year postoperative questionnaire from each site were randomly sampled. We examined percent agreement between patient-reported and medical chart audit comorbidity assessment and further evaluated agreement by intraclass correlation or κ statistic. Postoperative comorbidities assessed include weight, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, depression, obstructive sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), anxiety, and pain. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-five patients completed postoperative questionnaires after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The response rate was 64% during the study period. Patients reported weight with a mean difference of 2.7 lbs from chart weight (intraclass correlation = 0.964). Agreement between patient report and audit for all comorbidities was above 80% except for GERD (71%). κ statistics were greater than 0.6 (good agreement) for hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, and depression. Anxiety ( κ = 0.45) and obstructive sleep apnea ( κ = 0.53) had moderate agreement. Concordance for GERD and pain were fair (both κ = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported comorbidity assessment has high levels of agreement with medical chart audit for many comorbidities and can improve understanding of long-term outcomes. This will better inform patients and providers with hopes of 1 day moving beyond the 1%.

Relationship Between Health Care Spending and Clinical Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Implications for Medicare Bundled Payments.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sources of 90-day episode spending variation in Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery and whether spending variation was related to quality of care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medicare's bundled payments for care improvement-advanced program includes the first large-scale episodic bundling program for bariatric surgery. This voluntary program will pay bariatric programs a bonus if 90-day spending after surgery falls below a predetermined target. It is unclear what share of bariatric episode spending may be due to unnecessary variation and thus modifiable through care improvement. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 761 acute care hospitals providing inpatient bariatric surgery between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2016. We measured associations between patient and hospital factors, clinical outcomes, and total Medicare spending for the 90-day bariatric surgery episode using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 64,537 patients, 46% underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 22% revisited the emergency department (ED) within 90 days, and 12.5% were readmitted. Average 90-day episode payments were $14,124, ranging from $12,220 at the lowest-spending quintile of hospitals to $16,887 at the highest-spending quintile. After risk adjustment, 90-day episode spending was $11,447 at the lowest quintile versus $15,380 at the highest quintile (difference $3932, P < 0.001). The largest components of spending variation were readmissions (44% of variation, or $2043 per episode), post-acute care (19% or $871), and index professional fees (15% or $450). The lowest spending hospitals had the lowest complication, ED visit, post-acute utilization, and readmission rates (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the largest components of 90-day episode spending variation are readmissions, inpatient professional fees, and post-acute care utilization. Hospitals with lower spending were associated with lower rates of complications, ED visits, post-acute utilization, and readmissions. Incentives for improving outcomes and reducing spending seem to be well-aligned in Medicare's bundled payment initiative for bariatric surgery.

Evaluating the Impact of Surgeon Self-awareness by Comparing Self Versus Peer Ratings of Surgical Skill and Outcomes for Bariatric Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variation in self versus peer-assessments of surgical skill using surgical videos and compare surgeon-specific outcomes with bariatric surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Prior studies have demonstrated that surgeons with lower peer-reviewed ratings of surgical skill had higher complication rates after bariatric surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 25 surgeons who voluntarily submitted a video of a typical laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2015 and 2016. Videos were self and peer-rated using a validated instrument based on a 5-point Likert scale (5= "master surgeon" and 1= "surgeon-in-training"). Risk adjusted 30-day complication rates were compared between surgeons who over-rated and under-rated their skill based on data from 24,186 SG cases and 12,888 gastric bypass (GBP) cases. RESULTS: individual overall self-rating of surgical skill varied between 2.5 and 5. Surgeons in the top quartile for self:peer ratings (n = 6, ratio 1.58) had lower overall mean peer-scores (2.98 vs 3.79, P = 0.0150) than surgeons in the lowest quartile (n = 6, ratio 0.94). Complication rates between top and bottom quartiles were similar after SG, however leak rates were higher with gastric bypass among surgeons who over-rated their skill with SG (0.65 vs 0.27, P = 0.0181). Surgeon experience was similar between comparison groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Self-perceptions of surgical skill varied widely. Surgeons who over-rated their skill had higher leak rates for more complex procedures. Video assessments can help identify surgeons with poor self-awareness who may benefit from a surgical coaching program.

Evaluation of Patient Reported Gastroesophageal Reflux Severity at Baseline and at 1-year After Bariatric Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) severity before and after SG and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Development of new-onset or worsening GERD symptoms after bariatric surgery varies by procedure, but there is a lack of patient-reported data to help guide decision-making. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing bariatric surgery in a statewide quality collaborative between 2013 and 2017. We used a validated GERD survey with symptom scores ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 5 (severe daily symptoms) and included patients who completed surveys both at baseline and 1-year after surgery (n = 10,451). We compared the rates of improved and worsened GERD symptoms after SG and RYGB. RESULTS: Within our study cohort, 8680 (83%) underwent SG and 1771 (17%) underwent RYGB. Mean baseline score for all patients was 0.94. Patients undergoing SG experienced similar improvement in GERD symptoms when compared to RYGB (30.4% vs 30.8%, P = 0.7015). However, SG patients also reported higher rates of worsening symptoms (17.8% vs 7.5%, P < 0.0001) even though they were more likely to undergo concurrent hiatal hernia repair (35.1% vs 20.0%, P<0.0001). More than half of patients (53.5%) did not report a change in their score. CONCLUSIONS: Although SG patients reported higher rates of worsening GERD symptoms when compared to RYGB, the majority of patients (>80%) in this study experienced improvement or no change in GERD regardless of procedure. Using clinically relevant patient-reported outcomes can help guide decisions about procedure choice in bariatric surgery for patients with GERD.

Randomized Trial of Medical versus Surgical Treatment for Refractory Heartburn.

BACKGROUND: Heartburn that persists despite proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is a frequent clinical problem with multiple potential causes. Treatments for PPI-refractory heartburn are of unproven efficacy and focus on controlling gastroesophageal reflux with reflux-reducing medication (e.g., baclofen) or antireflux surgery or on dampening visceral hypersensitivity with neuromodulators (e.g., desipramine). METHODS: Patients who were referred to Veterans Affairs (VA) gastroenterology clinics for PPI-refractory heartburn received 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily for 2 weeks, and those with persistent heartburn underwent endoscopy, esophageal biopsy, esophageal manometry, and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring. If patients were found to have reflux-related heartburn, we randomly assigned them to receive surgical treatment (laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication), active medical treatment (omeprazole plus baclofen, with desipramine added depending on symptoms), or control medical treatment (omeprazole plus placebo). The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as a decrease of 50% or more in the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)-Health Related Quality of Life score (range, 0 to 50, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms) at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients (mean age, 48.5 years; 280 men) were enrolled. Prerandomization procedures excluded 288 patients: 42 had relief of their heartburn during the 2-week omeprazole trial, 70 did not complete trial procedures, 54 were excluded for other reasons, 23 had non-GERD esophageal disorders, and 99 had functional heartburn (not due to GERD or other histopathologic, motility, or structural abnormality). The remaining 78 patients underwent randomization. The incidence of treatment success with surgery (18 of 27 patients, 67%) was significantly superior to that with active medical treatment (7 of 25 patients, 28%; P = 0.007) or control medical treatment (3 of 26 patients, 12%; P<0.001). The difference in the incidence of treatment success between the active medical group and the control medical group was 16 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -5 to 38; P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred to VA gastroenterology clinics for PPI-refractory heartburn, systematic workup revealed truly PPI-refractory and reflux-related heartburn in a minority of patients. For that highly selected subgroup, surgery was superior to medical treatment. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01265550.).

Female Patient Perceptions on Financial Incentives to Promote Follow-Up After Bariatric Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Financial incentives to promote recommended behaviors have been applied in many healthcare settings, but to our knowledge, have never been tested as a strategy to improve patient follow-up after bariatric surgery. Given that females make up majority of bariatric surgery patients, our goal was to explore female patient perceptions on the effects of a financial incentive program designed to increase follow-up after bariatric surgery. METHODS: This was an exploratory qualitative study of patient participants in a pilot program investigating financial incentives. We performed qualitative interviews with female patients to include personal experiences with bariatric surgery, progress toward goals, and concerns related to post-surgical behaviors. The data was analyzed iteratively through inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one female patients who had undergone bariatric surgery and enrolled in the financial incentive program participated in this study. Participants had generally positive impressions of the financial incentive program. Participants described the utility of the program in helping to pay for expenses associated with bariatric surgery; feeling that participation was their way of demonstrating that they were compliant with post-surgical recommendations; and that it provided additional motivation. All patients stated that even without the financial incentive they would have continued to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While financial incentives can provide additional motivation for patients following bariatric surgery, they are not the primary reason that patients choose to follow-up. Understanding the motivation of patients who choose to follow-up (or not) may better inform investigations intended to improve follow-up rates after bariatric surgery.

Questioning the legitimacy of bariatric surgery: a qualitative analysis of individuals from the community who qualify for bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how individuals in the community who qualify for bariatric surgery perceive it and how this affects their likelihood to consider it for themselves. This study is the first qualitative study of a racially and ethnically diverse cohort to understand perceptions of bariatric surgery. METHODS: We designed a descriptive study to understand attitudes about bariatric surgery. We interviewed 32 individuals who met NIH criteria for bariatric surgery but have never considered bariatric surgery. We purposively sampled to ensure the majority of participants were non-white. Using an Interpretive Description framework, an exploratory, iterative method was used to code interviews and arrive at final themes. RESULTS: Participants self-identified as 88% female, 75% Black, 3% Hispanic, 3% Pacific Islander, and 19% white. Three major themes emerged from our data regarding legitimacy of bariatric surgery. First, participants perceived bariatric surgery to be something commercialized rather than needed treatment. They equated bariatric surgery with "botulism of the lips" or "cool sculpting." Second, an important contributor to the lack of legitimacy as a medical treatment was that many had not heard about bariatric surgery before from their doctors. Doctors were trusted sources for legitimate information about health. Lastly, conflicting information over bariatric surgery-related diet and weight loss further diminished the legitimacy of bariatric surgery. As one participant reflected about pre-operative weight loss requirements, "[If] I'm going to do that, I might as well just keep losing the weight. Why even go do the surgery?". CONCLUSION: Though bariatric surgery is a safe, effective, and durable therapy for patients with obesity, the majority of individuals we interviewed had concerns over the legitimacy of bariatric surgery as a medical treatment. Moving forward in reaching out to communities about bariatric surgery, healthcare providers and systems should consider the presentation of information to attenuate these concerns.

Patient characteristics and outcomes among bariatric surgery patients with high narcotic overdose scores.

BACKGROUND: Obesity-related chronic pain can increase the risk of narcotic abuse in bariatric surgery patients. However, assessment of overdose risk has not been evaluated to date. METHODS: A NARxCHECK® overdose score ("Narx score") was obtained preoperatively on all patients undergoing bariatric surgery (n = 306) between 2018 and 2020 at a single-center academic bariatric surgery program. The 3-digit score ranges from 000 to 999 and is based on patient risk factors found within the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. A Narx score ≥ 200 indicates tenfold increased risk of narcotic overdose. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and emergency room (ER) visits were compared between patients in the upper (≥ 200) and lower (000) terciles of Narx scores. Morphine milligram equivalent (MME) prescribed at discharge and refills was also evaluated. RESULTS: Patients in the upper tercile represented 32% (n = 99) of the study population, and compared to the lower tercile (n = 101, 33%), were more likely to have depression (63.6% vs 38.6%, p = 0.0004), anxiety (47.5% vs 30.7%, p = 0.0150), and bipolar disorder (6.1% vs 0.0%, p = 0.0120). Median MME prescribed at discharge was the same between both groups (75); however, high-risk patients were more likely to be prescribed more than 10 tablets of a secondary opioid (83.3% vs 0.0%, p = 0.0111), which was prescribed by another provider in 67% of cases. ER visits among patients who did not have a complication or require a readmission was also higher among high-risk patients (7.8% vs 0.0%, p = 0.0043). There were no deaths or incidents of mental health-related ER visits in either group. CONCLUSION: Patients with a Narx score ≥ 200 were more likely to have mental health disorders and have potentially avoidable ER visits in the setting of standardized opioid prescribing practices. Narx scores can help reduce ER visits by identifying at-risk patients who may benefit from additional clinic or telehealth follow-up.

Impact of hiatal hernia repair technique on patient-reported gastroesophageal reflux symptoms following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Repairing a hiatal hernia at the time of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) can reduce or even prevent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in the post-operative period. Several different hiatal hernia repair techniques have been described but their impact on GERD symptoms after SG is unclear. METHODS: Surgeons (n = 74) participating in a statewide quality collaborative were surveyed on their typical technique for repair of hiatal hernias during SG. Options included posterior repair with mesh (PRM), posterior repair (PR), and anterior repair (AR). Patients who underwent SG with concurrent hiatal hernia repair (n = 7883) were compared according to their surgeon's reported technique. Patient characteristics, baseline and 1-year GERD health-related quality of life surveys, weight loss and 30-day risk-adjusted complications were analyzed. RESULTS: The most common technique reported by surgeons for hiatal hernia repair was PR (n = 64, 85.3%), followed by PRM (n = 7, 9.3%) and AR (n = 4, 5.3%). Patients who underwent SG by surgeons who perform AR had lower rates of baseline GERD diagnosis (AR 55.3%, PR 59.5%, PRM 64.8%, p < 0.01), but were more likely to experience worsening GERD symptoms at 1 year (AR 29.8%, PR 28.7%, PRM 28.2%, p < 0.0001), despite similar weight loss (AR 29.8%, PR 28.7%, PRM 28.2%, p = 0.08). Satisfaction with GERD symptoms at 1 year was high (AR 73.2%, PR 76.3%, PRM 75.7%, p = 0.43), and risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes were similar among all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing SG with concurrent hiatal hernia repair by surgeons who typically perform an AR were more likely to report worsening GERD at 1 year despite excellent weight loss. Surgeons who typically performed an AR had nearly one-half of their patients report increased GERD severity after surgery despite similar weight loss. While GERD symptom control may be multifactorial, technical approach to hiatal hernia repair at the time of SG may play a role and a posterior repair is recommended.

Evaluating the Effect of Surgical Skill on Outcomes for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Video-based Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated a correlation between surgical skill and complication rates after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. However, the impact of surgical skill on a similar but less technically challenging procedure such as sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is unknown. METHODS: Practicing bariatric surgeons (n = 25) participating in a statewide quality improvement collaborative submitted an unedited deidentified video of a representative laparoscopic SG. Videos were obtained between 2015 and 2016 and were rated by bariatric surgeons in a blinded fashion using a validated instrument that assesses surgical skill. Overall scores were based on a 5-point Likert scale with 5 representing a "master surgeon" and 1 representing a "surgeon-in-training." Risk-adjusted 30-day complication rates, 1-year weight loss among cases performed during the study period, and operative technique were compared between surgeons rated in the top and bottom quartiles according to skill. RESULTS: Surgeon ratings for skill varied between 2.73 and 4.60. Ratings for skill did not correlate with overall 30-day risk-adjusted complication rates (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.213, P = 0.303). However, surgeons with higher skill ratings had lower rates of specific surgical complications, including postoperative obstruction (0.13% vs 0.3%, P = 0.017), hemorrhage (0.85% vs 1.27%, P = 0.005), and reoperation (0.24% vs 0.92%, P < 0.0001). Surgeons ranked in the top quartile for skill had faster operating times for SG (59.0 vs 82.1 min, P < 0.0001) and higher annual case volumes for both SG and any bariatric procedure (224.3 cases/yr vs 73.4 cases/yr, P = 0.009 and 244.9 cases/yr and 93.9 cases/yr, P = 0.009) when compared with surgeons in the bottom quartile. When comparing operative technique, top rated surgeons were noted to have a higher likelihood of using buttressing (83.3% vs 0%, P = 0.0041) and intraoperative endoscopy (83.3% vs 0%, P = 0.0041). CONCLUSIONS: Peer ratings for surgical skill varied for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy but did not have a significant impact on overall complication rates. Top rated surgeons had lower rates of obstruction, hemorrhage, and reoperation; however, severe morbidity remained extremely low among all surgeons.

Emergency Department Utilization and Readmissions Following Major Surgery: A Retrospective Study of Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: Reliable strategies for reducing postoperative readmissions remain elusive. As the emergency department (ED) is a frequent source of post-operative admissions, we investigated whether hospitals with high readmission rates also have high rates of post-discharge ED visits and high rates of readmission once an ED visit occurs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1,947,621 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing 1 of 5 common procedures in 2,894 hospitals between 2008 and 2011. We stratified hospitals into quintiles based on risk-standardized, 30-day post-discharge readmission rates (RSRR) and then compared rates of post-discharge ED visits, proportion readmitted from the ED, and readmissions within 7 days of ED discharge across these quintiles. RESULTS: RSRR varied widely across extremes of hospital quintiles (3.9% to 17.5%). Hospitals with either very low or very high RSRR had modest differences in rates of ED visits (12.4% versus 14.6%). In contrast, the proportion readmitted from the ED was nearly 3 times greater in Hospitals with very high RSRR compared with those with very low RSRR (12% versus 32.2%). These findings were consistent across all procedures. Importantly, hospitals with a low proportion readmitted from the ED did not exhibit an increased rate of readmission within 7 days of ED discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Although hospitals experience similar rates of ED visits following major surgery, some EDs and their affiliated surgeons and health system may deliver care preventing readmissions without an increased short-term risk of readmission following ED discharge. Reducing 30-day readmissions requires greater attention to the coordination of care delivered in the ED.