Jessica Ardila-Gatas1, Gautam Sharma1, S Julie-Ann Lloyd1, Zhamak Khorgami2, Chao Tu3, Philip R Schauer1, Stacy A Brethauer1, Ali Aminian4. 1. Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk M61, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, USA. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk M61, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. aminiaa@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery has led to early recovery and shorter hospital stay after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). This study aims to assess feasibility and outcomes of postoperative day (POD) 1 discharge after LRYGB and LSG from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) 2015 dataset. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective LRYGB and LSG and were discharged on POD 1 and 2 were extracted from the MBSAQIP dataset. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed between cases with POD 1 vs POD 2 discharge, and the 30-day outcomes of the cohorts were compared. RESULTS: A total of 80,464 patients met the study criteria: 8862 LRYGB and 31,370 LSG cases, which were discharged on POD 1, and matched 1:1 with those discharged on POD 2. Within the LRYGB cohort, patients discharged on POD 2 had higher all-cause morbidity (7.5% vs 6.1%; p < 0.001) and 30-day re-intervention (2.0% vs 1.5%; p = 0.004) in comparison with patients discharged on POD 1. There were no statistical differences with respect to serious morbidity (0.5% vs 0.4%; p = 0.15), 30-day readmission (4.9% vs 4.5%; p = 0.2), and 30-day reoperation (1.3% vs 1.2%; p = 0.7). Within the LSG cohort, patients discharged on POD 2 had higher all-cause morbidity (4.2% vs 3.4%; p < 0.001), serious morbidity (0.4% vs 0.3%; p < 0.001), 30-day re-intervention (1.0% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), and 30-day readmission (2.9% vs 2.5%; p = 0.002) in comparison with patients discharged on POD 1. CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge on POD 1 may be safe in a selective group of bariatric patients without significant comorbidities.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery has led to early recovery and shorter hospital stay after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). This study aims to assess feasibility and outcomes of postoperative day (POD) 1 discharge after LRYGB and LSG from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) 2015 dataset. METHODS:Patients who underwent elective LRYGB and LSG and were discharged on POD 1 and 2 were extracted from the MBSAQIP dataset. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed between cases with POD 1 vs POD 2 discharge, and the 30-day outcomes of the cohorts were compared. RESULTS: A total of 80,464 patients met the study criteria: 8862 LRYGB and 31,370 LSG cases, which were discharged on POD 1, and matched 1:1 with those discharged on POD 2. Within the LRYGB cohort, patients discharged on POD 2 had higher all-cause morbidity (7.5% vs 6.1%; p < 0.001) and 30-day re-intervention (2.0% vs 1.5%; p = 0.004) in comparison with patients discharged on POD 1. There were no statistical differences with respect to serious morbidity (0.5% vs 0.4%; p = 0.15), 30-day readmission (4.9% vs 4.5%; p = 0.2), and 30-day reoperation (1.3% vs 1.2%; p = 0.7). Within the LSG cohort, patients discharged on POD 2 had higher all-cause morbidity (4.2% vs 3.4%; p < 0.001), serious morbidity (0.4% vs 0.3%; p < 0.001), 30-day re-intervention (1.0% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), and 30-day readmission (2.9% vs 2.5%; p = 0.002) in comparison with patients discharged on POD 1. CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge on POD 1 may be safe in a selective group of bariatric patients without significant comorbidities.
Authors: John Saunders; Garth H Ballantyne; Scott Belsley; Daniel J Stephens; Amit Trivedi; Douglas R Ewing; Vincent A Iannace; Rafael F Capella; Annette Wasileweski; Steven Moran; Hans J Schmidt Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Edward H Livingston; Sergio Huerta; Denice Arthur; Scott Lee; Scott De Shields; David Heber Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Wayne J English; Eric J DeMaria; Stacy A Brethauer; Samer G Mattar; Raul J Rosenthal; John M Morton Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Robert B Dorman; Christopher J Miller; Daniel B Leslie; Federico J Serrot; Bridget Slusarek; Henry Buchwald; John E Connett; Sayeed Ikramuddin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hoani Macfater; Weisi Xia; Sanket Srinivasa; Andrew Graham Hill; Marc Van De Velde; Girsh P Joshi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Nicolas H Dreifuss; Carolina Vanetta; Francisco Schlottmann; Antonio Cubisino; Alberto Mangano; Carolina Baz; Francesco M Bianco; Antonio Gangemi; Chandra Hassan; Mario A Masrur Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 3.479