A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of the Metabolic Effects of Sleeve Gastrectomy with Transit Bipartition.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of the sleeve gastrectomy with transit bipartition (SG + TB) procedure with standard medical therapy (SMT) in mildly obese patients with type II diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Twenty male adults, ≤ 65 years old, with T2D, body mass index (BMI) > 28 kg/m2 and < 35 kg/m2, and HbA1c level > 8% were randomized to SG + TB or to SMT. Outcomes were the remission in the metabolic and cardiovascular risk variables up to 24 months. RESULTS: At 24 months, SG + TB group showed a significant decrease in HbaA1c values (9.3 ± 2.1 versus 5.5 ± 1.1%, P = < 0.05) whereas SMT group maintained similar levels from baseline (8.0 ± 1.5 versus 8.3 ± 1.1%, P = NS). BMI values were lower in the SG + TB group (25.3 ± 2.8 kg/m2 versus 30.9 ± 2.5 kg/m2; P = < 0.001). At 24 months, none patient in SG + TB group needed medications for hyperlipidemia/hypertension. HDL-cholesterol levels increased in the SG + TB group (33 ± 8 to 45 ± 15 mg/dL, P < 0.001). After 24 months, the area under the curve (AUC) of GLP1 increased and in the SG + TB group and the AUC of the GIP concentrations was lower in the SG + TB group than in the SMT. At 3 months, SG + TB group showed a marked increase in FGF19 levels (74.1 ± 45.8 to 237.3 ± 234 pg/mL; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SG + TB is superior to SMT and was associated with a better metabolic and cardiovascular profile.

Impact of cardiology referral: clinical outcomes and factors associated with physicians' adherence to recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiology referral is common for patients admitted for non-cardiac diseases. Recommendations from cardiologists may involve complex and aggressive treatments that could be ignored or denied by other physicians. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who were given recommendations during cardiology referrals and to examine the clinical outcomes of patients who did not follow the recommendations. METHODS: We enrolled 589 consecutive patients who received in-hospital cardiology consultations. Data on recommendations, implementation of suggestions and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Regarding adherence of the referring service to the recommendations, 77% of patients were classified in the adherence group and 23% were classified in the non-adherence group. Membership in the non-adherence group (p<0.001; odds ratio: 10.25; 95% CI: 4.45-23.62) and advanced age (p = 0.017; OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.07) were associated with unfavorable outcomes. Multivariate analysis identified four independent predictors of adherence to recommendations: follow-up notes in the medical chart (p<0.001; OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.48-4.01); verbal reinforcement (p = 0.001; OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.23-2.81); a small number of recommendation (p = 0.001; OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.94); and a younger patient age (p = 0.002; OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Poor adherence to cardiology referral recommendations was associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. Follow-up notes in the medical chart, verbal reinforcement, a limited number of recommendations and a patient age were associated with greater adherence to recommendations.

Impact of cardiology referral: clinical outcomes and factors associated with physicians' adherence to recommendations

OBJECTIVES: Cardiology referral is common for patients admitted for non-cardiac diseases. Recommendations from cardiologists may involve complex and aggressive treatments that could be ignored or denied by other physicians. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who were given recommendations during cardiology referrals and to examine the clinical outcomes of patients who did not follow the recommendations. METHODS: We enrolled 589 consecutive patients who received in-hospital cardiology consultations. Data on recommendations, implementation of suggestions and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Regarding adherence of the referring service to the recommendations, 77% of patients were classified in the adherence group and 23% were classified in the non-adherence group. Membership in the non-adherence group (p<0.001; odds ratio: 10.25; 95% CI: 4.45-23.62) and advanced age (p = 0.017; OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.07) were associated with unfavorable outcomes. Multivariate analysis identified four independent predictors of adherence to recommendations: follow-up notes in the medical chart (p<0.001; OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.48-4.01); verbal reinforcement (p = 0.001; OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.23-2.81); a small number of recommendation (p = 0.001; OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.94); and a younger patient age (p = 0.002; OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Poor adherence to cardiology referral recommendations was associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. Follow-up notes in the medical chart, verbal reinforcement, a limited number of recommendations and a patient age were associated with greater adherence to recommendations. .