Kyle H Sheetz1,2, Kenneth J Woodside3, Vahakn B Shahinian4, Justin B Dimick2, John R Montgomery3,2, Seth A Waits3,2. 1. Department of Surgery, Section of Transplantation, ksheetz@med.umich.edu. 2. The Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, and. 3. Department of Surgery, Section of Transplantation. 4. Division of Nephology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the potential for improving health status or increasing access to transplantation, national practice patterns for bariatric surgery in obese patients with ESKD are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to describe current trends in surgical care for this population. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using 100% Medicare data, we identified all beneficiaries undergoing bariatric surgery in the United States between 2006 and 2016. We evaluated longitudinal practice patterns using linear regression models. We also estimated risk-adjusted complications, readmissions, and length of stay using Poisson regression for patients with and without ESKD. RESULTS: The number of patients with ESKD undergoing bariatric surgery increased ninefold between 2006 and 2016. The proportional use of sleeve gastrectomy increased from <1% in 2006 to 84% in 2016. For sleeve gastrectomy, complication rates were similar between patients with and without ESKD (3.4% versus 3.6%, respectively; difference, -0.3%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 0.1%; P=0.57). However, patients with ESKD had more readmissions (8.6% versus 5.4%, respectively; difference, 3.2%; 95% confidence interval, 1.9% to 4.6%; P<0.001) and slightly longer hospitals stays (2.2 versus 1.9 days, respectively; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.4; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has replaced Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as the most common bariatric surgical procedure in patients with ESKD. The data also demonstrate a favorable complication profile in patients with sleeve gastrectomy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the potential for improving health status or increasing access to transplantation, national practice patterns for bariatric surgery in obesepatients with ESKD are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to describe current trends in surgical care for this population. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using 100% Medicare data, we identified all beneficiaries undergoing bariatric surgery in the United States between 2006 and 2016. We evaluated longitudinal practice patterns using linear regression models. We also estimated risk-adjusted complications, readmissions, and length of stay using Poisson regression for patients with and without ESKD. RESULTS: The number of patients with ESKD undergoing bariatric surgery increased ninefold between 2006 and 2016. The proportional use of sleeve gastrectomy increased from <1% in 2006 to 84% in 2016. For sleeve gastrectomy, complication rates were similar between patients with and without ESKD (3.4% versus 3.6%, respectively; difference, -0.3%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 0.1%; P=0.57). However, patients with ESKD had more readmissions (8.6% versus 5.4%, respectively; difference, 3.2%; 95% confidence interval, 1.9% to 4.6%; P<0.001) and slightly longer hospitals stays (2.2 versus 1.9 days, respectively; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.4; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has replaced Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as the most common bariatric surgical procedure in patients with ESKD. The data also demonstrate a favorable complication profile in patients with sleeve gastrectomy.
Authors: Philip R Schauer; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Kathy Wolski; Stacy A Brethauer; John P Kirwan; Claire E Pothier; Susan Thomas; Beth Abood; Steven E Nissen; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip R Schauer; Deepak L Bhatt; John P Kirwan; Kathy Wolski; Stacy A Brethauer; Sankar D Navaneethan; Ali Aminian; Claire E Pothier; Esther S H Kim; Steven E Nissen; Sangeeta R Kashyap Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elani Streja; Miklos Z Molnar; Csaba P Kovesdy; Suphamai Bunnapradist; Jennie Jing; Allen R Nissenson; Istvan Mucsi; Gabriel M Danovitch; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Dorry L Segev; Christopher E Simpkins; Richard E Thompson; Jayme E Locke; Daniel S Warren; Robert A Montgomery Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-12-19 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Luke A Baker; Daniel S March; Thomas J Wilkinson; Roseanne E Billany; Nicolette C Bishop; Ellen M Castle; Joseph Chilcot; Mark D Davies; Matthew P M Graham-Brown; Sharlene A Greenwood; Naushad A Junglee; Archontissa M Kanavaki; Courtney J Lightfoot; Jamie H Macdonald; Gabriella M K Rossetti; Alice C Smith; James O Burton Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: William P Martin; James White; Francisco J López-Hernández; Neil G Docherty; Carel W le Roux Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 5.555