Article

Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery Performed at Accredited vs Nonaccredited Centers

Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA. Electronic address: .
Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Impact Factor: 4.45). 06/2012; 215(4):467-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.05.032
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In an effort to improve the quality of care in bariatric surgery, 2 accreditation programs based on volume have been initiated. The aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative outcomes of bariatric surgery performed at accredited vs nonaccredited centers.
Patient-level data obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium for patients who underwent bariatric surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity between 2007 and 2009 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to accreditation status. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, 30-day readmission, overall complications, and cost. Comparisons of length of stay and cost were performed at the hospital-level data.
Of the 35,284 bariatric operations performed during the study period, 89.2% of cases were performed at 71 accredited centers; 10.8% of cases were performed at 43 nonaccredited centers. The rate of in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in accredited centers (0.06% vs 0.21%). Compared with nonaccredited centers, bariatric surgery performed at accredited centers was also associated with shorter length of stay (mean difference 0.3 days; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.44) and lower cost (mean difference, $3,758; 95% CI, $2,965 to $3,952). Post-hoc analyses based on procedural type and severity of illness suggested possible associations between center accreditation and improved in-hospital mortality in patients who underwent gastric bypass and patients with higher severity of illness; similarly, patients requiring prolonged ICU or hospital stay (≥7 days) had significantly lower in-hospital mortality within accredited centers.
Within the context of academic centers, accreditation status was associated with lower in-hospital mortality. The lower mortality rate associated with accredited centers may be attributed to their ability to recognize and rescue complications.

0 Followers
 · 
93 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background We report our initial experience and 6-month outcomes in a single center using the per-oral Incisionless Operating Platform™ (IOP) (USGI Medical) to place transmural plications in the gastric fundus and distal body using specialized suture anchors (the Primary Obesity Surgery Endolumenal [POSE] procedure). Methods A prospective observational study was undertaken with institutional Ethics Board approval in a private hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Indicated patients were WHO obesity class I–II, or III, where patients refused a surgical approach. Results Between February 28, 2011 and March 23, 2012, the POSE procedure was successfully performed in 45 patients: 75.6 % female; mean age 43.4 ± 9.2 SD (range 21.0–64.0). At baseline: mean absolute weight (AW, kg), 100.8 ± 12.9 (75.5–132.5); body mass index (BMI, kg/m2), 36.7 ± 3.8 (28.1–46.6). A mean 8.2 suture-anchor plications were placed in the fundus, 3.0 along the distal body wall. Mean operative time, 69.2 ± 26.6 min (32.0–126.0); patients were discharged in <24 h. Six-month mean AW was 87.0 ± 10.3 (68.0–111.5); BMI decreased 5.8 to 31.3 ± 3.3 (25.1–38.6) (p < 0.001); EWL was 49.4 %; TBWL, 15.5 %. No mortality or operative morbidity. Minor postoperative side effects resolved with treatment by discharge. Patients reported less hunger and earlier satiety post procedure. Liquid intake began 12 h post procedure with full solids by 6 weeks. Conclusions At 6-month follow-up of a prospective case series, the POSE procedure appeared to provide safe and effective weight loss without the scarring, pain, and recovery issues of open and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Long-term follow-up and further study are required.
    Obesity Surgery 09/2013; 23(9). DOI:10.1007/s11695-013-0937-8 · 3.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery (BAR) has been established as an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in obese patients. However, few studies have examined the mid- to long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery in diabetic populations. Specifically, no comparative studies have broadly examined major macrovascular and microvascular complications in bariatric surgical patients vs similar, nonbariatric surgery controls. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a large, population-based, retrospective cohort study of adult obese patients with T2DM, from 1996 to 2009, using UB-04 administrative data and vital records. Eligible patients undergoing bariatric surgery (BAR [n = 2,580]) were compared with nonbariatric surgery controls (CON [n = 13,371]) for the outcomes of any first major macrovascular event (myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause death) or microvascular event (new diagnosis of blindness, laser eye or retinal surgery, nontraumatic amputation, or creation of permanent arteriovenous access for hemodialysis), assessed in combination and separately, as well as other vascular events (carotid, coronary or lower extremity revascularization or new diagnosis of congestive heart failure or angina pectoris). RESULTS: Bariatric surgery was associated with favorable unadjusted 5-year event-free survival estimates for the combined primary outcome (95% ± 1% vs 81% ± 1%, log-rank p < 0.01) and each secondary outcome (log-rank p < 0.01). Multivariate-adjusted and propensity-based relative risk estimates showed BAR to be associated with a 60% to 70% reduction (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.36, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.47) in the combined primary outcome and 60% to 80% risk reductions for each secondary outcome (macrovascular events [adjusted HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51]; microvascular events [adjusted HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.49]; and other vascular events [adjusted HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.32]). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery is associated with a 65% reduction in major macrovascular and microvascular events in moderately and severely obese patients with T2DM.
    Journal of the American College of Surgeons 02/2013; 216(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.019 · 4.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relationship between volume and outcomes in bariatric surgery is well established in the literature. However, the analyses were performed primarily in the open surgery era and in the absence of national accreditation. The recent Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program proposed an annual threshold volume of 50 stapling cases. This study aimed to examine the effect of volume and accreditation on surgical outcomes for bariatric surgery in this laparoscopic era. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used for analysis of the outcomes experienced by morbidly obese patients who underwent an elective laparoscopic stapling bariatric surgical procedure between 2006 and 2010. In this analysis, low-volume centers (LVC < 50 stapling cases/year) were compared with high-volume centers (HVC ≥ 50 stapling cases/year). Multivariate analysis was performed to examine risk-adjusted serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality between the LVCs and HVCs. Additionally, within the HVC group, risk-adjusted outcomes of accredited versus nonaccredited centers were examined. Between 2006 and 2010, 277,760 laparoscopic stapling bariatric procedures were performed, with 85 % of the cases managed at HVCs. The mean number of laparoscopic stapling cases managed per year was 17 ± 14 at LVCs and 144 ± 117 at HVCs. The in-hospital mortality was higher at LVCs (0.17 %) than at HVCs (0.07 %). Multivariate analysis showed that laparoscopic stapling procedures performed at LVCs had higher rates of mortality than those performed at HVCs [odds ratio (OR) 2.5; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.3-4.8; p < 0.01] as well as higher rates of serious morbidity (OR 1.2; 95 % CI 1.1-1.4; p < 0.01). The in-hospital mortality rate at nonaccredited HVCs was 0.22 % compared with 0.06 % at accredited HVCs. Multivariate analysis showed that nonaccredited centers had higher rates of mortality than accredited centers (OR 3.6; 95 % CI 1.5-8.3; p < 0.01) but lower rates of serious morbidity (OR 0.8; 95 % CI 0.7-0.9; p < 0.01). In this era of laparoscopy, hospitals managing more than 50 laparoscopic stapling cases per year have improved outcomes. However, nonaccredited HVCs have outcomes similar to those of LVCs. Therefore, the impact of accreditation on outcomes may be greater than that of volume.
    Surgical Endoscopy 08/2013; 27(12). DOI:10.1007/s00464-013-3112-3 · 3.31 Impact Factor
Show more