Trends in bariatric surgery in Texas: an analysis of a statewide administrative database 2013-2017.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) tracks 30-day outcomes of bariatric patients, but only at accredited centers. Presently, these cases are not broken down by state. Administrative databases can be used to answer some of the questions that are not asked by clinical databases and also to validate those databases. We proposed using the inpatient and outpatient administrative databases in Texas to examine both the numbers and trends of bariatric surgery in Texas over a 5-year period. METHODS: The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (IPUDF) and the Texas Outpatient Public Data File (OPUDF) were examined for the years 2013-2017. We searched for patients undergoing laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and duodenal switch. Robotic assisted cases were also examined. RESULTS: There were 105,199 bariatric cases performed in Texas from 2013 to 2017. There were 173 centers performing bariatric surgery. The most common operation performed was the sleeve gastrectomy at 73,663 case (70% of total). Gastric bypasses were second at 22,890 cases. During this time period, LAGB almost disappeared; dropping from 2090 cases in 2013 to 115 cases in 2017, with removal of 2097 LAGB in the study period in the OPUDF. During this time period, there was a lower growth rate of the number of SG in the IPUDF with a large increase in SG performed with outpatient status, while LRYGB remained relatively stable. CONCLUSION: Rates of bariatric surgery in Texas are increasing slowly. The dominant procedure is the SG with a trend towards being done under outpatient status. LAGB has been essentially phased out. There is an increase in SG being performed under 'outpatient' status.

Endoscopy Used as Provocative Testing in Bariatric Surgery: An Analysis of the Texas Public Use Data File.

BACKGROUND: Many bariatric surgeons test the anastomosis and staple lines with some sort of provocative test. This can take the form of an air leak test with a nasogastric tube with methylene blue dye or with an endoscopy. The State Department of Health Statistics in Texas tracks outcomes using the Texas Public Use Data File (PUDF). METHODS: We queried the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDFs for 2013 to 2017 to examine the number of bariatric surgeries with endoscopy performed at the same time. We used the International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification Version 9 (ICD-9-CM) and ICD-10 procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology for Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and endoscopy, and the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 diagnosis codes for morbid obesity. RESULTS: There were 74,075 SG reported in the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDF for the years 2013-2017. Of the SG performed, 5,521 (7.4%) had an intraoperative endoscopy. For the 19,192 LRYGB reported, 1640 (8.6%) underwent LRYGB + endoscopy. This was broken down by SG only vs SG + endoscopy and LRYGB only vs LRYGB + endoscopy. Overall, SG + endoscopy had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) vs LRYGB + endoscopy at 1.74 d vs 2.34 d (P < .001) and a significantly less cost of $71,685 vs $91,093 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of SG and LRYGB patients underwent endoscopy for provocative testing over the study period. Provocative testing with endoscopy costs more for SG and LRYGB and was associated with a shorter LOS.

Are Concomitant Operations During Bariatric Surgery Safe? An Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database.

INTRODUCTION: The American College of Surgeons tracks 30-day outcomes using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program (MBSAQIP) database. We examined the short-term outcomes of patients that undergo bariatric surgery concomitantly with other operations such as hernia repairs and cholecystectomy to determine the safety of this practice. METHODS: The MBSAQIP Participant Use Data File for 2015-2017 was examined for differences in primary bariatric operations vs concomitant procedures (CP). We looked for concurrent CPT codes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and hernia repairs (ventral, epigastric, incisional, and inguinal). p was significant at < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 464,674 cases, of which 15,614 had CP. For both LRYGB+LC and SG+LC, there were increased operative times and length of stay. There were statistically significant higher rates of readmission, reintervention, and reoperation for SG+LC vs SG alone, as well as for LRYGB+hernia and SG+hernia. There was a higher risk of death (p < 0.001) in LRYGB+hernia patients. Also, LRYGB+hernia patients had statistically significant increases in unplanned admission to the intensive care unit and pulmonary embolus. SG+hernia patients had a higher rate of ventilation > 48 h, unplanned admission to the ICU, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and readmission, reintervention, and reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically higher rate of complications with concomitant procedures in the MBSAQIP database. Length of stay and operative times are increased in concomitant operations as are readmissions, reinterventions, and reoperations. These findings would indicate that additional procedures at the time of bariatric surgery should be deferred if possible.

Disparities in Access to Bariatric Surgery in Texas 2013-2017.

BACKGROUND: Access to bariatric care varies across regions, ethnic, and racial groups. Some of these variations may be due to insurance status or socioeconomic status. There are also regional and state variations in access to metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (IPUDF) and Texas Outpatient Public Use Data File is a state-mandated database that collects information on demographics, procedures, diagnoses, and cost on almost all admissions in Texas. We used them to examine racial disparities in MBS over a 5-y period. METHODS: The IPUDF and Texas Outpatient Public Use Data File were examined from the years 2013 through, 2017. We included all patients undergoing a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy and examined the demographics of these patients. Race and ethnicity are reported separately. We used U.S. Census Bureau statistics and the Texas Department of State Health Services statistics to determine the crude (unadjusted) and adjusted procedure rates of patients undergoing MBS. RESULTS: In the IUPUDF, the crude unadjusted procedure rate for blacks undergoing MBS was 7.29 per 10,000 population followed by 6.85 per 10,000 for non-Hispanic whites. Hispanics had the lowest rate at 3.20 per 10,000. When adjusted for sex, obesity, age, and race, blacks still had a higher rate of access followed by whites and then Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: There are disparities to access for bariatric surgery in Texas. Blacks have the greatest access followed by whites. Hispanics have the lowest procedure rate per population.

Conversions to open surgery greatly increase complications: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database tracks patients, techniques, and outcomes for 30 days. The overwhelming majority of cases reported are performed using a laparoscopic technique. Bariatric surgeons rarely have to convert from laparoscopy to open surgery. OBJECTIVES: We examined the MBSAQIP to determine the characteristics of patients who underwent conversion and evaluated their short-term outcomes. SETTINGS: University program in the United States and nationwide clinical database. METHODS: The MBSAQIP Public Use File for 2017 was examined for primary bariatric operations. We identified patients who underwent a sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass using a minimally invasive technique. We identified patients who underwent conversion to another operative technique or were converted to open surgery and analyzed preoperative characteristics and postoperative complication rates. Relative risks (RR) were calculated for complications. P value was significant at < .05. RESULTS: There were 186,962 patients in the entire cohort. Six hundred nine patients underwent conversion from the original surgical approach to either open surgery (n = 457) or to another technique (n = 152). Patients with preoperative oxygen dependency, poor functional status, previous foregut/obesity surgery, preoperative renal insufficiency, and anticoagulation were more likely to undergo conversion. Patients who underwent conversion to the open approach had longer operative times (191 versus 86.6 min [P < .001]) and longer time to discharge (6.2 versus 1.6 d [P < .001]). The RR of death was 18.2 (95% confidence interval 8.7-37.6, P < .001) for procedures converted to open. The RR of sepsis was 10.1 (95% confidence interval 4.2-24.2, P < .001) and the RR for all complications was increased throughout for patients undergoing conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the MBSAQIP database that undergo conversion to the open surgical approach are at a greatly increased risk for death and complications.

Concomitant Hiatal Hernia Repair with Sleeve Gastrectomy: A 5-Year Analysis.

Background: The sleeve gastrectomy (SG) can be associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux and when a hiatal hernia (HH) is present, it should be fixed. Earlier studies have shown that 20% of SG have a concomitant hiatal hernia repair (SG+HHR). The aim of this project is to determine the rate of SG+HHR in a large state administrative database. Methods: The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (IPUDF) and Outpatient Public Use Data File (OPUDF) for the years 2013-2017 were examined for patients that underwent SG+HHR at the same time. Patient demographics, diagnosis, and charge data were also examined. A t-test was performed between groups and P was considered significant at < 0.05. Results: In the OPUDF, there were 6,193 (33.7%) patients who underwent SG+HHR out of 18,403 patients who underwent SG. Mean charges were $94,741 [standard deviation (SD) = $87,284]. Length of stay (LOS) was 2.1 (SD = 3.5) vs 2.3 days (SD = 3.3) with a shorter stay for SG+HHR vs SG alone (P < 0.001). In the IPUDF, there were 11,536 (21.1%) patients who underwent SG+HHR out of 54,545 patients who underwent SG. Mean charges were $69,006 (SD = $46,365). LOS was 1.59 days (SD = 3.7) for SG+HHR vs 1.63 days (SD = 1.6) for SG (P = .043). The rate of SG+HHR increased over the study period. Conclusions: SG+HHR is common in both the outpatient and inpatient setting. There is a yearly trend of increasing rates of SG+HHR.

New Onset Cardiac Arrhythmias after Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) has been shown to improve medical problems; however, there are known arrhythmias that can occur after MBS (i.e., sick sinus syndrome [SSS] and sinus bradyarrhythmias). While the literature in this area contains case reports, there is a lack of published data on a state or national level. We used a large state administrative database to evaluate the occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias after MBS. METHODS: We studied the years 2016 to 2018 using the Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File. Inclusion criteria were patients who had a pacemaker installed and were ≥ 18 years. Quantitative variables were described using mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables were described using frequency and proportion. The student's t-test and chi-squared test were used to assess the differences across pacemaker installation. RESULTS: There were a total of 79,807 (10.2%) who had a history of MBS and 31,072 (4%) patients who underwent pacemaker insertion, respectively. After excluding all patients < 18 years, the prevalence of pacemakers installed in patients with prior bariatric surgery was 0.8% (n = 257/30,823) or about 8 in every 1000 patients. Of note, bariatric patients who had a pacemaker placed were younger than non-bariatric patients (P < 0.001). The most common reason for pacemaker placement was SSS (51.5%), followed by atrioventricular block (13.1%), and then bradycardia at 8.5%. The most common arrhythmia overall was bradycardia. CONCLUSIONS: Eight out of every 1000 patients with a pacemaker installed in the study period had a history of MBS. The most common arrhythmia was bradycardia and the most common reason for pacemaker placement was sick sinus syndrome. These results do not indicate causality but may demonstrate an association between MBS and arrhythmias. Bariatric patients undergo pacemaker placement at a younger age. The relationship between bariatric surgery and cardiac arrhythmias warrants further study.

Comparison of robotic revisional weight loss surgery and laparoscopic revisional weight loss surgery using the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: The most common bariatric operation in the United States is sleeve gastrectomy. The second and third most common bariatric operations are gastric bypass and revisional bariatric surgery, respectively. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the differences between laparoscopic revisional weight loss surgery (LRWLS) and robotic revisional weight loss surgery (RRWLS). SETTING: University hospital, United States. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database spanning 2015 to 2016 to look at demographic characteristics, operative time, co-morbidities, and length of stay. Using the specified Current Procedural Terminology codes, patients who underwent bariatric procedures and required a revisional procedure were identified. RESULTS: A total of 354,865 patients were included in this study; 37,917 (11.9%) patients required revision after undergoing a bariatric procedure. Of these revisions, 94.9% (n = 35,988) were LRWLS, and 5.1% (n = 1929) were RRWLS. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the LRWLS and RRWLS groups. There was a significant difference between the RRWLS and the LRWLS groups in operative time, with the RRWLS group taking 167 minutes and the LRWLS group taking 103 minutes (P < .001). There was a statistically significant increase in length of stay for RRWLS, 2.3 days versus 1.7 for LRWLS (P < .005). In terms of postoperative complications, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: RRWLS is as safe as LRWLS in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. There is an increase in operative times and length of stay for robotic cases.