Association of Bariatric Surgery Using Laparoscopic Banding, Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass, or Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Usual Care Obesity Management With All-Cause Mortality.

Importance: Bariatric surgery is an effective and safe approach for weight loss and short-term improvement in metabolic disorders such as diabetes. However, studies have been limited in most settings by lack of a nonsurgical group, losses to follow-up, missing data, and small sample sizes in clinical trials and observational studies. Objective: To assess the association of 3 common types of bariatric surgery compared with nonsurgical treatment with mortality and other clinical outcomes among obese patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in a large Israeli integrated health fund covering 54% of Israeli citizens with less than 1% turnover of members annually. Obese adult patients who underwent bariatric surgery between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014, were selected and compared with obese nonsurgical patients matched on age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and diabetes, with a final follow-up date of December 31, 2015. A total of 33 540 patients were included in this study. Exposures: Bariatric surgery (laparoscopic banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy) or usual care obesity management only (provided by a primary care physician and which may include dietary counseling and behavior modification). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, matched and adjusted for BMI prior to surgery, age, sex, socioeconomic status, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and smoking. Results: The study population included 8385 patients who underwent bariatric surgery (median age, 46 [IQR, 37-54] years; 5490 [65.5%] women; baseline median BMI, 40.6 [IQR, 38.5-43.7]; laparoscopic banding [n = 3635], gastric bypass [n = 1388], laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [n = 3362], and 25 155 nonsurgical matched patients (median age, 46 [IQR, 37-54] years; 16 470 [65.5%] women; baseline median BMI, 40.5 [IQR, 37.0-43.5]). The availability of follow-up data was 100% for all-cause mortality. There were 105 deaths (1.3%) among surgical patients during a median follow-up of 4.3 (IQR, 2.8-6.6) years (including 61 [1.7%] who underwent laparoscopic banding, 18 [1.3%] gastric bypass, and 26 [0.8%] sleeve gastrectomy), and 583 deaths (2.3%) among nonsurgical patients during a median follow-up of 4.0 (IQR, 2.6-6.2) years. The absolute difference was 2.51 (95% CI, 1.86-3.15) fewer deaths/1000 person-years in the surgical vs nonsurgical group. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality among nonsurgical vs surgical patients were 2.02 (95% CI, 1.63-2.52) for the entire study population; by surgical type, HRs were 2.01 (95% CI, 1.50-2.69) for laparoscopic banding, 2.65 (95% CI, 1.55-4.52) for gastric bypass, and 1.60 (95% CI, 1.02-2.51) for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among obese patients in a large integrated health fund in Israel, bariatric surgery using laparoscopic banding, gastric bypass, or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, compared with usual care nonsurgical obesity management, was associated with lower all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of approximately 4.5 years. The evidence of this association adds to the limited literature describing beneficial outcomes of these 3 types of bariatric surgery compared with usual care obesity management alone.

[Choice of bariatric and metabolic surgical procedures].

Bariatric and metabolic surgery has become the clinical hot topic of the treatment of metabolic syndromes including obesity and diabetes mellitus, but how to choose the appropriate surgical procedure remains the difficult problem in clinical practice. Clinical guidelines of American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery(ASMBS)(version 2013) introduced the procedures of bariatric and metabolic surgery mainly including biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch(BPD-DS), laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy(LSG). To choose the appropriate bariatric and metabolic procedure, the surgeons should firstly understand the indications and the contraindications of each procedure. Procedure choice should also consider personal condition (body mass index, comorbidities and severity of diabetes), family and socioeconomic status (postoperative follow-up attendance, understanding of potential surgical risk of gastrectomy and patient's will), family and disease history (patients with high risk of gastric cancer should avoid LRYGB; patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease should avoid LSG) and associated personal factors of surgeons. With the practice of bariatric and metabolic surgery, the defects, especially long-term complications, of different procedures were found. For example, LRYGB resulted in higher incidence of postoperative anemia and marginal ulcer, high risk of gastric cancer as well as the requirement of vitamin supplementation and regular follow-up. Though LSG has lower surgical risk, its efficacy of diabetes mellitus remission and long-term weight loss are inferior to the LRYGB. These results pose challenges to the surgeons to balance the benefits and risks of the bariatric procedures. A lot of factors can affect the choice of bariatric and metabolic procedure. Surgeons should choose the procedure according to patient's condition with the consideration of the choice of patients. The bariatric and metabolic surgery not only manages the diabetes mellitus and weight loss, but also results in the reconstruction of gastrointestinal tract and side effect. Postoperative surgical complications and nutritional deficiency should also be considered. Thereby, individualized bariatric procedure with the full consideration of each related factors is the ultimate objective of bariatric and metabolic surgery.

Concomitant removal of gastric band and sleeve gastrectomy: analysis of outcomes and complications from the ACS-NSQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Conversion of adjustable gastric band to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is feasible, but multiple reports have indicated higher morbidity and staple line leak rates when this is performed as a single-stage procedure. The objective of this study is to compare the safety profile and outcomes of LSG with concomitant gastric band removal (LSG/GBR) versus LSG using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). METHODS: Using the ACS-NSQIP database (2010-2012), LSG cases were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 43775 and concomitant LSG/LGBR using CPT code 43775+(43772 or 43774). Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative variables including postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were retrieved. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 30 days. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were carried out. RESULTS: During the study period, 11,189 (96.9%) patients had LSG and 357 (3.1%) had LSG/GBR for a total of 11,546 patients. On bivariate analyses, the rate of sepsis was higher after LSG/GBR (1.68% versus .58%; P = .022), and the mean operative time was longer (124.6±52.3 versus 98.6±49.0 min; P<.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of postoperative mortality (.28% versus .08 %; P = .27) or that of other outcomes such as return to the operating room, wound infection, or venous thromboembolism. After multivariate analysis, the odds of developing postoperative sepsis remained significantly higher for patients undergoing LSG/GBR compared with LSG alone (odds ratio [OR] 3.32; confidence interval [CI] 1.41-7.84; P = .006). CONCLUSION: LSG/GBR can be performed with low morbidity and mortality. However, this procedure carries a higher rate of postoperative sepsis.

How safe is metabolic/diabetes surgery?

Although recent studies have shown the impressive antidiabetic effects of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), the safety profile of metabolic/diabetes surgery has been a matter of concern among patients and physicians. Data on patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent LRYGB or one of seven other procedures between January 2007 and December 2012 were retrieved from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database and compared. Of the 66 678 patients included, 16 509 underwent LRYGB. The composite complication rate of 3.4% after LRYGB was similar to those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hysterectomy. The mortality rate for LRYGB (0.3%) was similar to that of knee arthroplasty. Patients who underwent LRYGB had significantly better short-term outcomes in all examined variables than patients who underwent coronary bypass, infra-inguinal revascularization and laparoscopic colectomy. In conclusion, LRYGB can be considered a safe procedure in people with diabetes, with similar short-term morbidity to that of common procedures such as cholecystectomy and appendectomy and a mortality rate similar to that of knee arthroplasty. The mortality risk for LRYGB is one-tenth that of cardiovascular surgery and earlier intervention with metabolic surgery to treat diabetes may eliminate the need for some later higher-risk procedures to treat diabetes complications.

Body mass index is predictive of higher in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass but not laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or gastric banding.

High body mass index (BMI) has been shown to be a factor predictive of increased morbidity and mortality in several single-institution studies. Using the University HealthSystem Consortium clinical database, we examined the impact of BMI on in-hospital mortality for patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and gastric banding between October 2011 and February 2014. Outcomes were examined within each procedure according to BMI groups of 35 to 49.9, 50.0 to 59.9, and 60.0 kg/m(2) or greater. Outcome measures included in-hospital mortality, major complications, length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, and cost. A total of 40,102 bariatric procedures were performed during this time period. For gastric bypass, there was an increase of in-hospital mortality (0.01 and 0.02 vs 0.34%; P < 0.01) and major complications (0.93 and 0.99 vs 2.62%; P < 0.01) in the BMI 60 kg/m(2) or greater group. In contrast, sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding had no association between BMI and rates of mortality and major complications. Cost increased with increasing BMI groups for all procedures. A strong association was found between BMI 60 kg/m(2) or greater and higher in-hospital mortality and major complication rates for patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass but not in patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or gastric banding.

Short-term morbidity associated with removal and revision of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) insertion is a commonly performed bariatric procedure with low associated short-term risk. Given that a significant number of patients will require additional revision/removal procedures, overall morbidity may be underestimated. The objective of this study was to define the 30-day morbidity associated with LAGB removal and revision procedures. METHODS: Patients undergoing revision or removal of LAGB were identified within The American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) participant use file using current procedural terminology and ICD-9 coding. Patients having concurrent procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes included 30-day morbidity. The rate of complications in the removal/revision patients versus primary LAGB insertion was compared. We also analyzed trends over time. RESULTS: A total of 3,236 patients underwent LAGB removal (n = 1,580), revision (n = 1,111) or port site revision (n = 545) from 2006-2011. The overall 30-day complication rate was 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.8%, 6.4%) and was higher in patients undergoing LAGB removal with a 6.8% (95% CI: 5.6%, 8.1%) adverse event rate (2.5% infectious, 2.3% wound, 2.4% reoperation). A total of 24,438 patients underwent primary LAGB insertion within the data set with a 30-day complication rate of 2.6% (95% CI: 2.4%, 2.8%). Patients undergoing LABG removal had a significantly higher complication rate than those having primary LAGB insertion with an odds ratio of 2.72 (95% CI: 2.18, 3.37). The proportion of LAGB revision/removal compared to primary placement increased annually over the study period (P for trend<.001). CONCLUSION: The 30-day morbidity associated with LAGB revision is significant and higher than that associated with primary LAGB insertions. The potential need for future procedures and the associated additional morbidity should be considered when evaluating LAGB as a treatment option for morbid obesity.

Laparoscopy for primary and secondary bariatric procedures.

Recently obesity has been defined as a disease and has turned bariatric surgery into a part of a chronic illness management. Obesity induces several comorbidities leading to cardiovascular disease and mortality. The effects of bariatric surgery on these comorbidities used to be classified as weight-loss induced. However bariatric surgery has recently been termed metabolic surgery because of the suspected direct, weight loss independent effect of bariatric procedures on the physiopathological mechanisms causing excess fat storage and insulin resistance. This review describes the standard procedures commonly performed and their specific outcomes on metabolic diseases in order to work towards more patient tailored treatment of obesity and to reduce side effects. Furthermore this review focuses on gaps in understanding the pathogenesis of obesity and its treatment with bariatric surgery. Surgery failures as well as new techniques are discussed and evaluated.

Obesity surgery mortality risk score for the prediction of complications after laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Morbimortality after bariatric surgery varies according to patient characteristics and associated comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the Obesity sugery mortality risk score scale (OS-MRS) to predict the risk of postoperative complications after bariatric surgery. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of a prospective series of patients undergoing bariatric surgery in which the OS-MRS scale was applied preoperatively. Postoperative complications were classified as proposed by Dindo-Clavien. We analyzed the relationship between the categories of OS-MRS scale: A) low risk, B) intermediate risk, and C) high risk and the presence of complications. RESULTS: Between May 2008 and June 2012, 198 patients were included (85 [42.9%] after gastric bypass and 113 [57.1%] after sleeve gastrectomy). Using the OS-MRS scale, 124 patients were classified as class A (62.6%), 70 as class B (35.4%) and 4 as class C (2%). The overall morbidity rate was 12.6% (25 patients). A significant association between OS-MRS scale and rate of complications (7.3, 20 and 50%, respectively, P=.004) was demonstrated. The gastric bypass was associated with a higher complication rate than sleeve gastrectomy (P=.007). In multivariate analysis, OS-MRS scale and surgical technique were the only significant predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: The OS-MRS scale is a useful tool to predict the risk of complications and can be used as a guide when choosing the type of bariatric surgery.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure after adjustable gastric band--a systematic review.

The adjustable gastric band (L)AGB gained popularity as a weight loss procedure. However, long-term results are disappointing; many patients need revision to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The purpose of this study was to assess morbidity, mortality, and results of these two revisional procedures. Fifteen LRYGB studies with a total of 588 patients and eight LSG studies with 286 patients were included. The reason for revision was insufficient weight loss or weight regain in 62.2 and 63.9% in LRYGB and LSG patients. Short-term complications occurred in 8.5 and 15.7% and long-term complications in 8.9 and 2.5%. Reoperation was performed in 6.5 and 3.5%. Revision to LRYGB or LSG after (L)AGB is feasible and relatively safe. Complication rate is higher than in primary procedures.

Sleeve gastrectomy in the elderly: a safe and effective procedure with minimal morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we demonstrated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery in patients over 65 years of age. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of this procedure as a final step for treatment of morbid obesity in the same population. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed. Between 2004 and 2010, a total of 35 patients age 60 and greater were analyzed from a total of 512 sleeve gastrectomy patients. Demographics, preoperative body mass index, complications, and excess weight loss were recorded and compared to bougie size and follow-up in months. Mean age was 66.3 years (range, 60-79 years), mean body mass index was 46.3 kg/m(2) (range, 33.7-77.6 kg/m(2)), and mean excess weight loss was 148.49 lb (range, 72-252 lb). RESULTS: One patient (2.8 %) had an incidental colotomy as a result of trocar insertion, one patient (2.0 %) bled, and one patient (2.8 %) had small-bowel enterotomy. Overall, morbidity was 8.4 % with no mortality. Mean percent excess weight loss results for bougie size 52 were 28, 34, 26, 18, and 27 % at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 months, respectively; for bougie size 46 were 31, 57, 64, 62, and 82 % at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 months, respectively; and bougie size 38 were 37, 50, 55, and 56 % at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is an effective procedure for morbidly obese patients age 60 and greater that can be performed safely.

Perioperative risk factors for 30-day mortality after bariatric surgery: is functional status important?

BACKGROUND: Although the mortality from bariatric surgery is low, perioperative determinants of morbidity and mortality in the bariatric surgery population to date have not been fully defined. This study aimed to evaluate the factors capable of predicting perioperative mortality based on preoperative characteristics with a national patient sample. METHODS: From the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, all the primary bariatric procedures performed between 2007 and 2009 were identified. Using univariate analysis, factors associated with increased perioperative (30-day) mortality were identified. Logistic regression was used to select correlates of 30-day mortality, which were subsequently integrated into a simplified clinical scoring system based on the number of comorbid risk factors. RESULTS: The study identified 44,408 patients (79 % women, 21 % men) with a mean age of 45 ± 11 years. The cumulative 30-day perioperative mortality rate was 0.14 %. The majority of the procedures performed included laparoscopic gastric bypass (54 %) followed by laparoscopic gastric banding (33 %) and open gastric bypass (7 %). Independent predictors associated with significantly increased mortality included age >45 years [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.45], male gender (AOR = 1.77), a body mass index (BMI) of 50 kg/m(2) or higher (AOR, 2.48), open bariatric procedures (AOR, 2.34), diabetes (AOR, 2.88), functional status of total dependency before surgery (AOR, 27.6), prior coronary intervention (AOR, 2.66), dyspnea at preoperative evaluation (AOR, 4.64), more than 10 % unintentional weight loss in 6 months (AOR, 13.5), and bleeding disorder (AOR, 2.63). Ethnicity, hypertension, alcohol abuse, liver disease, and smoking had no significant association with mortality in this study. Risk stratification based on the number of preoperative comorbid factors showed an exponential increase in mortality as follows: 0-1 comorbidities (0.03 %), 2-3 comorbidities (0.16 %), and 4 comorbidities or more (7.4 %). CONCLUSION: This model provides a straightforward, precise, and easily applicable tool for identifying bariatric patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for in-hospital mortality. Notably, baseline functional status before surgery is the single most powerful predictor of perioperative survival and should be incorporated into risk stratification models.

Outcome of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and prevalence of band revision and explantation at academic centers: 2007-2009.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is gaining in popularity in the United States. Our objective was to examine the outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and the prevalence of band revision and explantation at academic medical centers. METHODS: Using the "International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision," diagnosis and procedure codes, data were obtained from the University Health System Consortium Clinical Database for all laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedures performed from 2006 to 2009. The outcome measures included demographics, length of hospital stay, perioperative morbidity, mortality, and the prevalence of band revision and explantation. RESULTS: A total of 10,151 laparoscopic gastric banding procedures were performed from January 2007 to December 2009. The mean length of stay was 1.2 days. The perioperative morbidity rate was 3.0%, and the in-hospital mortality rate was .03%. The prevalence of band revision was .76% and of band explantation was .87%. Compared with the outcome of primary gastric banding, gastric band revision or explantation was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, greater perioperative morbidity, and greater cost. CONCLUSION: Within the context of the 3-year period of analysis, laparoscopic gastric banding was associated with low perioperative morbidity and mortality and a low prevalence of band revision and explantation.

Long term efficacy of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding--retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic procedures have emerged over the past decade for treatment of obesity. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is the easiest surgical technique for morbid obesity. OBJECTIVES: The authors analyzed the long term results of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in their center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 172 consecutive patients who had undergone laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding between May 2005 and February 2011 in authors clinic were contacted for evaluation. The main outcome measures were complications, secondary operations, percent excess weight loss, mortality, patient satisfaction and band removal rate. RESULTS: The follow-up rate was 62.2%. Mean age of patients was 30.6 years. Mean body mass index of patients was 48.47 +/- 7.8 kg/m2. Median follow-up interval was 36 months (min 8, max 81) and band removal rate was 19.1%. There was one mortality. Of all patients, 33 had band removal. The band was removed laparoscopically in 21 patients. The main reason for band removal was slippage followed by band erosion. After band removal, 4 patients had re-banding, 5 had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Overall, the mean percent excess weight loss was 50.6 +/- 7.8% (range, 5-100%). Mean percent excess weight loss for those who had band removal was 27.8 +/- 5.78% (range 12.5-34.1%). Overall satisfaction index was rated as "good" for 42% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a low satisfaction index, considerable mean percent excess weight loss and vast improvement in co-morbidities is achieved after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. The authors conclude that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding can be utilized as the initial surgical procedure in morbid obesity.

A review of studies comparing three laparoscopic procedures in bariatric surgery: sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and adjustable gastric banding.

Obesity is a major worldwide problem in public health, reaching epidemic proportions in many countries, especially in urbanized regions. Bariatric procedures have been shown to be more effective in the management of morbid obesity, compared to medical treatments in terms of weight loss and its sustainability. The two most commonly performed procedures are laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and the novel laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The MEDLINE database (cutoff date September 2010), LILACS, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the key words "gastric bypass," "sleeve gastrectomy," and "gastric banding." Only studies that compared at least two of the laparoscopic procedures were included. Reviews and meta-analysis, editorial letters or comments, case reports, animal or in vitro studies, comparisons with medical treatment, comparisons with open (non-laparoscopic) procedures were excluded. Most studies indicated that LRYGB and LSG could be more effective achieving weight loss than LAGB. However, LAGB seems to be a safer procedure with frequent, but less severe, long-term complications. Although not uniformly reported, a resolution of obesity-related comorbidities was achieved with most bariatric procedures. The three procedures have acceptable efficacy and safety. We believe that patients should be informed in detail on the advantages and disadvantages of each available procedure, possibly in several interviews and always accompanied by a specialized interdisciplinary team, warranting long-term follow-up.

Long-term prevention of mortality in morbid obesity through bariatric surgery. a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials performed with gastric banding and gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery has been reported to reduce long-term mortality in operated participants in comparison with nonoperated participants. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials published as full articles dealing with cardiovascular (CV) mortality, all-cause mortality (noncardiovascular), and global mortality (sum of CV and all-cause mortality). Pooled-fixed effects of estimates of the risk of mortality in participants undergoing surgery were calculated compared with controls. RESULTS: Of 44,022 participants from 8 trials (14,052 undergoing surgery and 29,970 controls), death occurred in 3317 participants (400 in surgery, 2917 in controls); when the kind of death was specified, 321 CV deaths (118 in surgery, 203 in controls), and 523 all-cause deaths (218 in surgery, 305 in controls) occurred. Compared with controls, surgery was associated with a reduced risk of global mortality (OR = 0.55, CI, 0.49-0.63), of CV mortality (OR = 0.58, CI, 0.46-0.73), and of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.70, CI, 0.59-0.84).Data of all-cause mortality were not heterogeneous; heterogeneity of data of CV mortality decreased when studies were grouped according to size (large vs small studies). The reduction of risk was smaller in large than in small studies (OR = 0.61 vs 0.21, 0.63 vs 0.16, 0.74 vs 0.35 for global, CV, and all-cause mortality, respectively). The effect of gastric banding and gastric by-pass (3797 vs 10,255 interventions) was similar for global and all-cause mortality (OR = 0.57 vs 0.55, and 0.66 vs 0.70, respectively), different for CV mortality (OR = 0.71 vs 0.48). At meta-regression analysis, a trend for a decrease of global mortality (Log OR) linked to increasing BMI appeared. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that (1) bariatric surgery reduces long-term mortality; (2) risk reduction is smaller in large than in small studies; and (3) both gastric banding and gastric by-pass reduce mortality with a greater effect of the latter on CV mortality.

Preoperative gastric conditioning in cervical gastroplasty.

To determine if ischemic conditioning of the stomach improves the morbidity, mortality, and the anastomotic failure in gastroplasties with cervical anastomosis. Analysis of all patients with indication for cervical gastroplasty during the period of study. In all cases, ischemic conditioning was performed by selective embolization. Anastomotic failure, morbidity, and mortality rates were studied. Thirty-nine consecutive patients were included. Angiography and selective embolization of the left gastric, right gastric, and splenic arteries were performed. Surgery was performed 2 weeks later. Four patients did not have a complete embolization; median hospital stay after conditioning was 1.24 ± 0.6 days. In two patients, surgery could not be completed. Of the 33 remaining, 29 had a posterior mediastinic gastroplasty and four through the anterior mediastinum. The most common morbidity was respiratory. Five patients had a reoperation and the mortality was 6%. One case of anastomotic leak was found (3%). The mean hospital stay was 17.5 days. Preoperative embolization is a technique with acceptable morbidity and a short hospital stay. In our experience it can reduce the incidence of the morbidity, mortality, and anastomotic leak in gastroplasties with cervical anastomosis. Prospective studies will be necessary to demonstrate the validity of this approach.

Prevalence and outcome of esophagogastric anastomotic leak after esophagectomy in a UK regional cancer network.

The aim of this study was to determine the contemporary prevalence, outcome, and survival after esophagogastric anastomotic leakage (EGAL) following esophagectomy by a regional upper gastrointestinal cancer network and to investigate etiological factors. Two hundred forty consecutive patients underwent esophagectomy over a 10-year period (median age 61 [31-79] years, 147 transthoracic and 93 transhiatal esophagectomy, 105 neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 49 chemoradiotherapy). The primary outcome measures were the development of EGAL and survival. Twenty patients developed EGAL (8.3%, 15 managed conservatively, 5 reoperation). Overall operative mortality was 2% (5 patients in total, 1 after EGAL). Median, 1 and 2-year survival was 22 months, 73% and 50%, in patients after EGAL, compared with 31 months, 80% and 56%, in patients who did not suffer EGAL (P= 0.314). On multivariate analysis, low body mass indices (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.79, P= 0.016), individual surgeon (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.43, P= 0.02), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 3.28, 95% CI 1.16-9.22, P= 0.024) were significantly associated with the development of EGAL. EGAL following esophagectomy remained common, but associated mortality was less common than reported in earlier Western series and long-term survival was unaffected.

Mortality after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: results from an anonymous questionnaire to ASBS members.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) approved 6 years ago by the Federal Drug Administration is considered a safe and simple procedure for weight loss with a reported low mortality rate (0.05%) in the literature. The aim of the study was to probe the membership of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery (ASBS) to elucidate the incidence and possible causes of unreported operative and late mortality. METHODS: A simple questionnaire on early (30 days) and late mortality after LAGB and reoperation for banding was sent to 1,437 of 2,500 members of ASBS. Incidences and causes were studied. RESULTS: Of the 1,437 questionnaires sent, 453 (31%) were returned. Sixty-eight of the surgeons did not do any LAGBs, 350 had no operative mortalities, and 35 (9%) reported at least one operative mortality and had a total of 36 operative deaths and 19 late deaths, for a grand total of 55. Five additional deaths occurred after reoperations for LAGB, following removal, revisions, or conversions to another bariatric procedure. Of 62 deaths, the causes were: 20 (33%) cardiac origin, 11 (18%) thromboembolic, ten (16%) GI perforations, three (5%) bleedings, and 18 miscellaneous. Of all deaths, 40% occurred remotely from the band insertion date. CONCLUSIONS: Although LAGB is technically simple, it carries a non-negligible short- and long-term mortality, with the majority being cardiac or thromboembolic. Late mortalities from LAGB and reoperations appear to be under-reported.

Low mortality in bariatric surgery 1995 through 2005 in Sweden, in spite of a shift to more complex procedures.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is expanding worldwide. In a previous study, we found a threefold increase in the annual incidence in Sweden between 1987 and 1996. The aim of the present study was to describe the nationwide practice of bariatric surgery until 2005 and determine the perioperative mortality. METHODS: All bariatric procedures were identified through linkage to the Swedish Inpatient Registry, kept by the National Board of Health and Welfare. Mortality data were obtained from the Swedish National Death Registry RESULTS: A total of 8,129 bariatric procedures were identified. Seventy-eight percent of the patients were women and the mean age was 40.3 years. Hospital stay averaged 6 days. There was a 27% increase in the number of procedures performed in 2005 compared to 1995. After a decline in the beginning of the century, an increase of 119% is noted from 2001 to 2005. In the beginning of the study period, simple gastric restrictive procedures dominated (79%), but these procedures declined gradually. Gastric bypass has had the opposite development and reached 79% of all performed bariatric procedures in 2005. Laparoscopy has been introduced under the study period and in 2005, 42% of all gastric bypasses were performed by laparoscopy. The 30-day mortality was 0.16%. CONCLUSION: In spite of the shift to more complex procedures, the operative mortality was low.

Bands and bypasses: 30-day morbidity and mortality of bariatric surgical procedures as assessed by prospective, multi-center, risk-adjusted ACS-NSQIP data.

BACKGROUND: Previous multi-institution comparisons of open and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGB and LRYGB), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) have been limited by the lack of unique current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Specific codes have been available for LRYGB and LAGB since 2005 and 2006, respectively. We compare the short-term safety of these procedures, using risk-adjusted clinical data from a multi-institutional quality improvement program. METHODS: The America College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant Use File (PUF) was used to compare patients undergoing LRYGB with those undergoing ORYGB or LAGB. RESULTS: ORYGB versus LRYGB: The 2-year study period (2005-2006) included 5,777 patients (ORYGB = 1,146, LRYGB = 4,631). Patients undergoing ORYGB experienced a higher 30-day incidence of mortality (0.79% vs. 0.17%; p = 0.002), major complications rate (7.42% vs. 3.37%; p < 0.0001), any complication rate (13.18% vs. 6.69%; p < 0.0001), return visits to the OR (4.97% vs. 3.56%; p = 0.032), and longer postoperative length of stay (LOS) (median 3 vs. 2 days; p < 0.0001). After risk adjustment, ORYGB continued to demonstrate higher odds of major complication (OR = 2.04; [1.54, 2.69]). LAGB versus LRYGB: Analysis of 1 year of data from 2006 included 4,756 patients (LRYGB = 3,580, LAGB = 1,176). Those treated with LAGB experienced an equivalent 30-day mortality (0.09% vs. 0.14%; p = 1.0), and a lower rate of major complications (1.0% vs. 3.3%; p < 0.0001), any complication (2.6% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.0001), return visits to the OR (0.94% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.0001), and shorter postoperative LOS (median 1 vs. 2 days; p < 0.0001). Risk adjustment showed that LAGB was associated with a lower major complication odds (OR = 0.29; [0.16, 0.53]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with LRYGB, ORYGB is associated with higher 30-day mortality and higher risk-adjusted major complication rate. While ORYGB may sometimes be indicated, a laparoscopic approach may be safer for RYGB when feasible. LAGB, compared with LRYGB, has a similarly low mortality rate and a small but statistically significant decrease in risk-adjusted 30-day complications. Clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes will need to be evaluated to determine superiority between these procedures.