Prevalence and Risk Factors for Bariatric Surgery Readmissions: Findings From 130,007 Admissions in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate readmissions following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated national readmission rates for primary bariatric surgery with national, bariatric-specific data. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary LAGB, LSG, or LRYGB from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, at 698 centers were identified based upon Current Procedural Terminology codes. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission from date of initial operation. RESULTS: A total of 130,007 patients who underwent primary bariatric surgery were identified: 7378 LAGB (5.7%), 80,646 LSG (62.0%), and 41,983 LRYGB (32.3%). A total of 5663 (4.4%) patients were readmitted within 30 days for all causes. Patients undergoing LAGB had the lowest related readmission rate of 1.4%, followed by LSG (2.8%), and LRYGB (4.9%). Of patients who had a complication, 17.9% (n = 785) were readmitted, whereas those without readmission had a complication 1.9% of the time (P < 0.001). The most common cause of a related readmission was nausea, vomiting, fluid, electrolyte, and nutritional depletion (35.4%), followed by abdominal pain (13.5%), anastomotic leak (6.4%), and bleeding (5.8%), accounting for more than 61% of readmissions. When compared with LAGB, LSG, and LRYGB had significantly higher rates of readmission (LSG: odds ratio 1.89; 95% confidence interval 1.52-2.33; LRYGB: odds ratio 3.06; 95% confidence interval 2.46-3.81). CONCLUSIONS: National bariatric readmissions after primary procedures were closely associated with complications, varied based on the type of procedure, and were most commonly due to nausea, vomiting, electrolyte, and nutritional depletion.

Evaluating agreement between clinic- and patient-reported outcomes for weight and co-morbidities at 1 year after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Development of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to include traditionally clinic-reported data has the potential to decrease the data-collection burden for patients and clinicians and increase follow-up rates. However, replacing clinic report by patient report requires that the data reasonably agree. OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between PROs and clinical registry data at 1 year after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization, bariatric surgery data registry, PROs platform. METHODS: Patient- and clinic-reported 1-year postoperative weight and co-morbidities were compared for matched PROs and registry records. The co-morbidities evaluated were diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and hyperlipidemia. Weight difference in pounds and nominal groupings (binary, 4-level) for co-morbidities were assessed for agreement between data sources using descriptive statistics, Bland-Altman plots, multiple regression, and kappa coefficients. Sensitivity analyses and follow-up by response method were examined. RESULTS: Among 1130 patients with both 1-year PROs and registry weights, 95% of patient-reported weights were within 13 lb of the registry-recorded weight, and patients underreported their weight by ∼2 lb, on average. Percent agreement and kappa coefficients were highest for diabetes (n = 999; binary: 94%, κ = .72; 4-level: 86%, κ = .71) and lowest for gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 1032; binary: 75%, κ = .40; 4-level: 57%, κ = .35). Of patients eligible for both PROs and registry 1-year follow-up, 21% had PROs only. CONCLUSIONS: One-year patient- and clinic-reported weights and disease status for patients with diabetes and hypertension showed high agreement. The degree of bias from patient report was low. Patient report is a viable alternative to clinic report for certain objective measurements and may increase follow-up.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and obesity: An Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) Clinical Practice Statement (CPS) 2022.

Background: This Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) Clinical Practice Statement (CPS) provides clinicians an overview of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), potential progression to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and their application to obesity. Methods: The scientific information for this CPS is based upon published scientific citations, clinical perspectives of OMA authors, and peer review by the Obesity Medicine Association leadership. Results: Topics of this CPS include the prevalence of NAFLD and NASH, the prevalence of NAFLD and NASH among patients with obesity, as well as NAFLD and NASH definitions, diagnosis, imaging, pathophysiology, differential diagnosis, role of high fructose corn syrup and other simple sugars, and treatment (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, medications). Conclusions: This Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) Clinical Practice Statement (CPS) regarding NAFLD and obesity is one of a series of OMA CPSs designed to assist clinicians in the care of patients with the disease of obesity. Patients with obesity are at increased risk for NAFLD and NASH. Patients may benefit when clinicians who manage obesity understand the etiology, diagnosis, and optimal treatment of NAFLD with a goal to prevent NASH.

Employing Enhanced Recovery Goals in Bariatric Surgery (ENERGY): a national quality improvement project using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: To date, there have been no large-scale enhanced recovery projects in bariatric surgery in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to implement an enhanced recovery protocol for selected Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program centers and determine its impact on length of stay, bleeding, readmissions, and reoperation rates. SETTING: University and private practice programs, United States. METHODS: Participating sites were identified based on historical extended length of stay (ELOS, ≥4 d). A 6-month run-up period was used to allow implementation of the protocol. Primary bariatric procedures were included in the analysis, which compared ELOS from historic data (2016) with outcomes during the Employing Enhanced Recovery Goals in Bariatric Surgery (ENERGY) project. Relationships between adherence to the 26 process measures and ELOS were analyzed. Specific adverse 30-day outcomes were monitored. RESULTS: Thirty-six centers participated in the project. The final analytic sample consisted of 18,048 cases total over a 24-month period, including 8946 from the 2016 calendar year and 9102 from the ENERGY period. The overall rates of ELOS for pre- and postintervention were 8.1% and 4.5%, respectively, without increasing readmission rates, reoperation rates, or overall morbidity. Bleeding rates increased from .8% preintervention to 1.1% during ENERGY (adjusted P = .06). There was a significant association between increased adherence score and decreased odds of ELOS (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a large-scale enhanced recovery project is feasible and results in decreased ELOS without increasing overall adverse events or readmissions. Increased adherence to the protocol was closely associated with decreased ELOS. The ENERGY protocol or similar enhanced recovery pathways should be implemented on a larger scale to further improve the care and outcomes of bariatric surgery patients.