ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To separately compare the long-term risk of mortality among bariatric surgical patients undergoing either RYGB or SG to large, matched, population-based cohorts of patients with severe obesity who did not undergo surgery. BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery has been associated with reduced long-term mortality compared to usual care for severe obesity which is particularly relevant in the COVID-19 era. Most prior studies involved the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) operation and there is less long-term data on the sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: In this retrospective, matched cohort study, patients with a body mass index ≥35âkg/m2 who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2005 to September 2015 in three integrated health systems in the United States were matched to nonsurgical patients on site, age, sex, body mass index, diabetes status, insulin use, race/ethnicity, combined Charlson/Elixhauser comorbidity score, and prior health care utilization, with follow-up through September 2015. Each procedure (RYGB, SG) was compared to its own control group and the two surgical procedures were not directly compared to each other. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis investigated time to all-cause mortality (primary outcome) comparing each of the bariatric procedures to usual care. Secondary outcomes separately examined the incidence of cardiovascular-related death, cancer related-death, and diabetes related-death. RESULTS: Among 13,900 SG, 17,258 RYGB, and 87,965 nonsurgical patients, the 5-year follow-up rate was 70.9%, 72.0%, and 64.5%, respectively. RYGB and SG were each associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality compared to nonsurgical patients at 5-years of follow-up (RYGB: HR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35,0.54; SG: HR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.13,0.57) Similarly, RYGB was associated with a significantly lower 5-year risk of cardiovascular- (HR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.37), cancer- (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.76), and diabetes-related mortality (HR = 0.23; 95% CI:0.15, 0.36). There was not enough follow-up time to assess 5-year cause-specific mortality in SG patients, but at 3-years follow up, there was significantly lower risk of cardiovascular- (HR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.19, 0.58), cancer- (HR = 0.26; 95% CI:0.11, 0.59), and diabetes-related (HR = 0.15; 95% CI:0.04, 0.53) mortality for SG patients. CONCLUSION: This study confirms and extends prior findings of an association with better survival following bariatric surgery in RYGB patients compared to controls and separately demonstrates that the SG operation also appears to be associated with lower mortality compared to matched control patients with severe obesity that received usual care. These results help to inform the trade-offs between long-term benefits and risks of bariatric surgery.
ABSTRACT
PurposeThe Bariatric Experience Long Term (BELONG) prospective study cohort was created to address limitations in the literature regarding the relationship between surgical weight loss and psychosocial, health, behaviour and environmental factors. The BELONG cohort is unique because it contains 70% gastric sleeve and 64% patients with non-white race/ethnicity and was developed with strong stakeholder engagement including patients and providers.ParticipantsThe BELONG cohort study included 1975 patients preparing to have bariatric surgery who completed a baseline survey in a large integrated health system in Southern California. Patients were primarily women (84%), either black or Hispanic (59%), with a body mass index (BMI) of 45.1±7.4 kg/m2, age 43.3±11.5 years old, and 32% had at least one comorbidity.Findings to dateA total of 5552 patients were approached before surgery between February 2016 and May 2017, and 1975 (42%) completed a baseline survey. A total of 1203 (73%) patients completed the year 1 and 1033 (74%) patients completed the year 3 postoperative survey. Of these survey respondents, 1341 at baseline, 999 at year 1, and 951 at year 3 were included in the analyses of all survey and weight outcome data. A total of 803 (60% of eligible patients) had survey data for all time points. Data collected were self-reported constructs to support the proposed theoretical model. Height, weight and BMI were ed from the electronic medical record to obtain the main outcomes of the study: weight loss and regain.Future plansWe will collect self-reported constructs and obtain height, weight and BMI from the electronic medical record 5 years after bariatric surgery between April 2022 and January 2023. We will also collect patient experiences using focus groups of 8–12 patients each throughout 2022.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is wreaking havoc on society, especially health-care systems, including disrupting bariatric and metabolic surgery. The current limitations on accessibility to non-urgent care undermine postoperative monitoring of patients who have undergone such operations. Furthermore, like most elective surgery, new bariatric and metabolic procedures are being postponed worldwide during the pandemic. When the outbreak abates, a backlog of people seeking these operations will exist. Hence, surgical candidates face prolonged delays of beneficial treatment. Because of the progressive nature of obesity and diabetes, delaying surgery increases risks for morbidity and mortality, thus requiring strategies to mitigate harm. The risk of harm, however, varies among patients, depending on the type and severity of their comorbidities. A triaging strategy is therefore needed. The traditional weight-centric patient-selection criteria do not favour cases based on actual clinical needs. In this Personal View, experts from the Diabetes Surgery Summit consensus conference series provide guidance for the management of patients while surgery is delayed and for postoperative surveillance. We also offer a strategy to prioritise bariatric and metabolic surgery candidates on the basis of the diseases that are most likely to be ameliorated postoperatively. Although our system will be particularly germane in the immediate future, it also provides a framework for long-term clinically meaningful prioritisation.