Ten-year Outcomes of a Prospective Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic Gastric Banding.

OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoints of this study were long-term weight loss, morbidity, and changes in comorbidities and quality of life. BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is an effective option for the treatment of severe obesity and its related comorbidities. However, few studies have reported on the long-term outcome (>5 yrs) of bariatric surgery. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2007, 250 patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 to 60 kg/m were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic gastric bypass or laparoscopic gastric banding. After exclusions, 111 patients underwent gastric bypass and 86 patients underwent gastric banding. Factors predictive of improved weight loss were analyzed using multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean age was 43 ±â€Š10 years and the mean BMI was 46.5 ±â€Š5.6 kg/m. At 10-year follow-up, the mean total body weight loss for the entire cohort was -37.5 ±â€Š19.4 kg, -42.4 ±â€Š19.6 kg for gastric bypass versus -27.4 ±â€Š14.5 kg for gastric banding. Late reoperation was significantly higher after gastric banding compared with the gastric bypass group (31.4% vs. 8.1%, respectively, P < 0.01). For the entire cohort, improvement or remission of diabetes occurred in 68%; 61% for hypertension; and 57% for dyslipidemia. The long-term mortality for the entire cohort was 1.0% at a mean follow-up of 9.5 ±â€Š0.4 years. Factors predictive of improved weight loss included the type of operation (ie, gastric bypass), female sex, and the absence of diabetes at baseline. At long-term follow-up, quality of life continues to be improved from baseline for both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for severe obesity with durable 10-year weight loss and improvement in comorbidities and quality of life. Compared with gastric banding, gastric bypass was associated with better long-term weight loss, lower rate of late reoperation, and improved remission of comorbidities.

Trends in utilization of bariatric surgery, 2009-2012.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of bariatric surgery has changed dramatically over the past two decades. The aim of this study was to update the trends in volume and procedural type of bariatric surgery in the USA. Data were derived from the National Inpatient Sample from 2009 through 2012. METHODS: We used ICD-9 diagnosis and procedural codes to identify all hospitalizations during which a bariatric procedure was performed for the treatment of severe obesity. The data were reviewed for patient demographics and characteristics, annual number of bariatric operations, and specific procedural types and proportion of laparoscopic cases. The US Census data were used to calculate the population-based annual rate of bariatric surgery per 100,000 adults. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2012, the number of inpatient bariatric operations ranged between 81,005 and 114,780 cases annually. During this time period, the annual rate of bariatric procedures was highest for 2012 at 47.3 procedures per 100,000 adults. The bariatric surgery approach most commonly performed continues to be laparoscopic, ranging between 93.1 and 97.1 %. In 2012, there was a precipitous reduction in the number of gastric bypass and gastric banding operations and replaced by an increase in the number of sleeve gastrectomy operation. The in-hospital mortality rate remains low, ranging from 0.07 to 0.10 %. CONCLUSIONS: In the USA, the annual volume of inpatient bariatric surgery continues to be stable. Utilization of the laparoscopic approach to bariatric surgery remains high, while the in-hospital mortality continues to be low at ≤0.10 % throughout the 4-year period.

Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted general and bariatric surgery is gaining popularity among surgeons. The aim of this study was to analyze the utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques for common elective general and bariatric surgical procedures performed at Academic Medical Centers. METHODS: We analyzed data from University HealthSystem Consortium clinical database from October 2010 to February 2014 for all patients who underwent laparoscopic versus robotic techniques for eight common elective general and bariatric surgical procedures: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, gastric band, antireflux surgery, Heller myotomy (HM), cholecystectomy (LC), colectomy, rectal resection (RR). Utilization and outcome measures including demographics, in-hospital mortality, major complications, 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS), and costs were compared between techniques. RESULTS: 96,694 laparoscopic and robotic procedures were analyzed. Utilization of the robotic approach was the highest for RR (21.4%), followed by HM (9.1%). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality or major complications between laparoscopic versus robotic techniques for all procedures. Only two procedures had improved outcome associated with the robotic approach: robotic HM and robotic LC had a shorter LOS compared to the laparoscopic approach (2.8 ± 3.6 vs. 2.3 ± 2.1; respectively, p < 0.05 for HM and 2.9 ± 2.4 vs. 2.3 ± 1.7; respectively, p < 0.05 for LC). Costs were significantly higher (21%) in the robotic group for all procedures. A subset analysis of patients with minor/moderate severity of illness showed similar results. CONCLUSION: This national analysis of academic centers showed a low utilization of robotic-assisted laparoscopic elective general and bariatric surgical procedures with the highest utilization for rectal resection. Compared to conventional laparoscopy, there were no observed clinical benefits associated with the robotic approach, but there was a consistently higher cost.

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.

One-year outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for the treatment of morbid obesity.

Sleeve gastrectomy is emerging to be the procedure of choice in the management of severe obesity. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes between patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). A retrospective matched cohort analysis was performed between 150 patients who underwent LSG versus 150 patients who underwent LAGB. The cohorts were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and preoperative comorbidities. Length of hospital stay (1.6 vs 1.1 days, P < 0.01) was longer in the LSG group. Perioperative complications were similar between groups (4.6% for LSG vs 2.0% for LAGB) but the late complication rate was significantly lower in the LSG group (1.3 vs 8.0%). The 30-day reoperation (0 vs 0.7%) and readmission (1.3 vs 1.3%) rates were similar between groups. There were no 90-day mortalities in the study. The mean reduction in BMI was significantly higher for LSG (-11.9 kg/m(2) for LSG vs -6.2 kg/m(2) for LAGB, P < 0.01) at 1-year follow-up. The number of medications used to control all comorbidities was significantly lower at follow-up compared with baseline for both groups. The mean reduction in the number medications used to control hypertension was greater in the LSG group (-1.00 ± 0.70 vs -0.35 ± 0.70 medications, P < 0.01). LSG has a perioperative safety profile comparable to that of LAGB but achieved significantly better weight loss and control of hypertension with a lower rate of late complications.

Multicenter evaluation of vancomycin dosing: emphasis on obesity.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data available regarding the dosing of antimicrobials in obesity. However, data are available demonstrating that vancomycin should be dosed on the basis of actual body weight. METHODS: This study was conducted at 2 tertiary care medical centers that did not have pharmacy-guided vancomycin dosing programs or other institutional vancomycin dosing policies or protocols. Patients who received vancomycin between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2006, were stratified by body mass index and randomly selected from the computer-generated queries. Patients >or=18 years of age with a creatinine clearance of at least 60 mL/min who received vancomycin for at least 36 hours were included. RESULTS: Data were collected on a random sampling of 421 patients, stratified by body mass index, who met the inclusion criteria. Most patients in each body mass index category received a fixed dose of vancomycin 2 g daily divided into 2 doses (underweight 82%, normal weight 90%, overweight 86%, and obese 91%). Adequate initial dosing (>or=10 mg/kg/dose) was achieved for 100% of underweight, 99% of normal weight, 93.9% of overweight, and 27.7% of obese patients (P < .0001). Ninety-seven percent of underweight, 46% of normal weight, 1% of overweight, and 0.6% of obese patients received >or=15 mg/kg/dose recommended by several Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. Pharmacists also failed to correct inadequate dosing because only 3.3% of patients receiving less than 10 mg/kg/dose had their regimen changed in the first 24 hours of therapy. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter pilot study, obese patients routinely received inadequate empiric vancomycin using a lenient assessment of dosing. Greater efforts should be undertaken to ensure patients receive weight-based dosing because inadequate dosing can lead to subtherapeutic concentrations and potentially worse clinical outcomes.