Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery Performed at Accredited vs Nonaccredited Centers

ArticleinJournal of the American College of Surgeons 215(4):467-74 · June 2012with11 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.05.032 · Source: PubMed
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.
    • "[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 comparing patient outcome in accredited and nonaccredited hospitals [23, 25, 31, 32, 34, 35]. In general, performance in accredited hospitals was higher than in non-accredited hospitals and showing higher compliance to standards also affecting outcome positively [29]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: The increased international focus on improving patient outcomes, safety and quality of care has led stakeholders, policy makers and healthcare provider organizations to adopt standardized processes for evaluating healthcare organizations. Accreditation and certification have been proposed as interventions to support patient safety and high quality healthcare. Guidelines recommend accreditation but are cautious about the evidence, judged as inconclusive. The push for accreditation continues despite sparse evidence to support its efficiency or effectiveness. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes and keyword searches in any language. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and AMSTAR framework. 915 abstracts were screened and 20 papers were reviewed in full in January 2013. Inclusion criteria included studies addressing the effect of hospital accreditation and certification using systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies with a control group, or interrupted time series. Outcomes included both clinical outcomes and process measures. An updated literature search in July 2014 identified no new studies. Results: The literature review uncovered three systematic reviews and one randomized controlled trial. The lone study assessed the effects of accreditation on hospital outcomes and reported inconsistent results. Excluded studies were reviewed and their findings summarized. Conclusion: Accreditation continues to grow internationally but due to scant evidence, no conclusions could be reached to support its effectiveness. Our review did not find evidence to support accreditation and certification of hospitals being linked to measurable changes in quality of care as measured by quality metrics and standards. Most studies did not report intervention context, implementation, or cost. This might reflect the challenges in assessing complex, heterogeneous interventions such as accreditation and certification. It is also may be magnified by the impact of how accreditation is managed and executed, and the varied financial and organizational healthcare constraints. The strategies hospitals should impelment to improve patient safety and organizational outcomes related to accreditation and certification components remains unclear.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015
  • [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.
    Article · Sep 2013
  • [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.
    Article · Feb 2013
Show more

  • undefined · undefined
  • undefined · undefined
  • undefined · undefined