Abdullah A Alalwan1,2, Jeffrey Friedman3, Haesuk Park4, Richard Segal4, Babette Brumback5, Abraham Hartzema4. 1. Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. alalwan@qu.edu.sa. 2. Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Buraidah, Qassim, Saudi Arabia. alalwan@qu.edu.sa. 3. UF Health Bariatric Surgery Center, Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of bariatric surgery has increased dramatically in the USA. However, there are growing concerns regarding the safety outcomes of different bariatric procedures. We aim to compare the safety of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), which includes hospital readmissions, emergency room (ER) visits, gastrointestinal bleeding, and revisional surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted for adults (≥ 18 years) who received SG and RYGB in the USA. We used Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare supplemental claims databases from January 1, 2005, to October 1, 2015. To adjust for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, we used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score. Cox proportional hazard models was used to compare safety outcomes between SG and RYGB after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: A total of 194,248 patients met inclusion criteria; 79,813 patients (41%) received SG and 114,435 patients (59%) received RYGB. The use of SG was associated with a significantly lower 30-day hospital readmission rate [adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.81] and ER visits [aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.83], and decreased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding [aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98] compared to RYGB. However, SG was associated with an increased risk of revisional surgery, compared to RYGB [aHR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving bariatric surgery in a real-world setting, SG was associated with lower complication rate but a higher risk of revisional surgery compared to RYGB. Further longitudinal studies are needed to assess long-term findings.
BACKGROUND: Use of bariatric surgery has increased dramatically in the USA. However, there are growing concerns regarding the safety outcomes of different bariatric procedures. We aim to compare the safety of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), which includes hospital readmissions, emergency room (ER) visits, gastrointestinal bleeding, and revisional surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted for adults (≥ 18 years) who received SG and RYGB in the USA. We used Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare supplemental claims databases from January 1, 2005, to October 1, 2015. To adjust for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, we used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score. Cox proportional hazard models was used to compare safety outcomes between SG and RYGB after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: A total of 194,248 patients met inclusion criteria; 79,813 patients (41%) received SG and 114,435 patients (59%) received RYGB. The use of SG was associated with a significantly lower 30-day hospital readmission rate [adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.81] and ER visits [aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.83], and decreased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding [aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98] compared to RYGB. However, SG was associated with an increased risk of revisional surgery, compared to RYGB [aHR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving bariatric surgery in a real-world setting, SG was associated with lower complication rate but a higher risk of revisional surgery compared to RYGB. Further longitudinal studies are needed to assess long-term findings.
Authors: Abdullah A Alalwan; Jeffrey Friedman; Haesuk Park; Richard Segal; Babette A Brumback; Abraham G Hartzema Journal: Surgery Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Jonathan L Thigpen; Chrisly Dillon; Kristen B Forster; Lori Henault; Emily K Quinn; Yorghos Tripodis; Peter B Berger; Elaine M Hylek; Nita A Limdi Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-01-13
Authors: Mohammad Khalid Jamal; Eric J DeMaria; Jason M Johnson; Brennan J Carmody; Luke G Wolfe; John M Kellum; Jill G Meador Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2005-10-27 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Andrew Cunningham; C Michael Stein; Cecilia P Chung; James R Daugherty; Walter E Smalley; Wayne A Ray Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Mario Morino; Mauro Toppino; Pietro Forestieri; Luigi Angrisani; Marco Ettore Allaix; Nicola Scopinaro Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 12.969