John R Montgomery1,2, Seth A Waits1, Justin B Dimick1,2, Dana A Telem1,2. 1. University of Michigan, Department of General Surgery, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. University of Michigan, Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with CKD experience higher rates of perioperative complications after RYGB compared to sleeve gastrectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For obese CKD patients who qualify for bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy is often preferred to RYGB based on perceptions of prohibitively-high perioperative risks surrounding RYGB. However, some patients with CKD are not candidates for sleeve gastrectomy and the incremental increased-risk from RYGB has never been rigorously tested in this population. METHODS: CKD patients who underwent RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy between 2015 and 2017 were identified from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File. RYGB patients were 1:1 propensity-score matched with sleeve gastrectomy patients based on preoperative factors that influence operative choice. Primary outcomes included 30-day readmissions, surgical complications, medical complications, and death. Secondary outcomes included the individual complications used to create the composite surgical/medical complications. Univariate logistic regression was used to compare outcomes. E-value statistic was used to test the strength of outcome point estimates against possible unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Demographics were similar between RYGB (n = 673) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 673) cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes. Among secondary outcomes, only acute kidney injury was statistically-significantly higher among RYGB patients (4.9% vs 2.7%, P = 0.035, E-value 1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Among well-matched cohorts of RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy patients, incidence of primary outcomes were similar. Among secondary outcomes, only acute kidney injury was statistically-significantly higher among RYGB patients; however, the E-value for this difference was small and relatively weak confounder(s) could abrogate the statistical difference. The perception that RYGB has prohibitively-high perioperative risks among CKD patients is disputable and operative selection should be weighed on patient candidacy and anticipated long-term benefit.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with CKD experience higher rates of perioperative complications after RYGB compared to sleeve gastrectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For obese CKD patients who qualify for bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy is often preferred to RYGB based on perceptions of prohibitively-high perioperative risks surrounding RYGB. However, some patients with CKD are not candidates for sleeve gastrectomy and the incremental increased-risk from RYGB has never been rigorously tested in this population. METHODS: CKD patients who underwent RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy between 2015 and 2017 were identified from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File. RYGB patients were 1:1 propensity-score matched with sleeve gastrectomy patients based on preoperative factors that influence operative choice. Primary outcomes included 30-day readmissions, surgical complications, medical complications, and death. Secondary outcomes included the individual complications used to create the composite surgical/medical complications. Univariate logistic regression was used to compare outcomes. E-value statistic was used to test the strength of outcome point estimates against possible unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Demographics were similar between RYGB (n = 673) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 673) cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes. Among secondary outcomes, only acute kidney injury was statistically-significantly higher among RYGB patients (4.9% vs 2.7%, P = 0.035, E-value 1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Among well-matched cohorts of RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy patients, incidence of primary outcomes were similar. Among secondary outcomes, only acute kidney injury was statistically-significantly higher among RYGB patients; however, the E-value for this difference was small and relatively weak confounder(s) could abrogate the statistical difference. The perception that RYGB has prohibitively-high perioperative risks among CKD patients is disputable and operative selection should be weighed on patient candidacy and anticipated long-term benefit.
Authors: Philip R Schauer; Deepak L Bhatt; John P Kirwan; Kathy Wolski; Ali Aminian; Stacy A Brethauer; Sankar D Navaneethan; Rishi P Singh; Claire E Pothier; Steven E Nissen; Sangeeta R Kashyap Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniela S C Magalhães; Jorge M P Pedro; Pedro E B Souteiro; João Sérgio Neves; Sofia Castro-Oliveira; Rita Bettencourt-Silva; Maria Manuel Costa; Ana Varela; Joana Queirós; Paula Freitas; Davide Carvalho Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: J-M Catheline; M Fysekidis; Y Bendacha; J-J Portal; N Huten; E Chouillard; J Gugenheim; G Fourtanier; K Arapis; S Msika; J M Fabre; M Sodji; E Vicaut; R Dbouk; J Roussel; R Cohen Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 2.043
Authors: Reza Fazl Alizadeh; Shiri Li; Colette Inaba; Patrick Penalosa; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Brian R Smith; Michael J Stamos; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jordana B Cohen; Colleen M Tewksbury; Samuel Torres Landa; Noel N Williams; Kristoffel R Dumon Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Zubaidah Nor Hanipah; Suriya Punchai; Toms Augustin; Stacy A Brethauer; Philip R Schauer; Ali Aminian Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Brad C Astor; Chester H Fox; Tamara Isakova; James P Lash; Carmen A Peralta; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Harold I Feldman Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-03-16 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: John R Montgomery; Jordan A Cohen; Craig S Brown; Kyle H Sheetz; Grace F Chao; Seth A Waits; Dana A Telem Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 8.086