Does Long-Term Post-Bariatric Weight Change Differ Across Antidepressants?

Objectives:. We sought to evaluate whether weight change up to 5 years after bariatric surgery differed by antidepressant class taken before surgery. Background:. Bariatric surgery induces significant weight loss, but outcomes are highly variable. The specific type of antidepressant used prior to surgery may be an important factor in long-term weight loss. Methods:. This retrospective cohort study from 2000 to 2016 compared the 5-year weight loss of 556 Veterans who were taking antidepressant monotherapy (bupropion, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]) before bariatric surgery (229 sleeve gastrectomy and 327 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) versus 556 matched nonsurgical controls. Results:. Patients taking bupropion before sleeve gastrectomy had greater differential weight loss between surgical patients and matched controls than those taking SSRIs at 1 (8.9 pounds; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6–16.3; P = 0.02) and 2 years (17.6 pounds; 95% CI, 5.9–29.3; P = 0.003), but there was no difference at 5 years (11.9 pounds; 95% CI, –8.9 to 32.8; P = 0.26). Findings were similar for gastric bypass patients taking bupropion compared to SSRIs at 1 (9.7 pounds; 95% CI, 2.0–17.4; P = 0.014), 2 (12.0 pounds; 95% CI, –0.5 to 24.5; P = 0.06), and 5 years (4.8 pounds; 95% CI, –16.7 to 26.3; P = 0.66). No significant differences were observed comparing patients taking SNRI versus SSRI medications. Conclusions:. Sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass patients taking bupropion had greater weight loss than those taking SSRIs, although these differences may wane over time. Bupropion may be the first-line antidepressant of choice among patients with severe obesity considering bariatric surgery

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study

Objectives:. Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either “early” (within 14 d of intubation) or “late” (more than 14 d after intubation). Design:. International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. Setting:. Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. Patients:. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Interventions:. Not applicable. Measurements and Main Results:. A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, −16 to −8; p < 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, −23 to −9 d; p < 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, −31 to −12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8−5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. Conclusions:. COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity

Factors Associated With Having a Physician, Nurse Practitioner, or Physician Assistant as Primary Care Provider for Veterans With Diabetes Mellitus

Expanded use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) is a potential solution to workforce issues, but little is known about how NPs and PAs can best be used. Our study examines whether medical and social complexity of patients is associated with whether their primary care provider (PCP) type is a physician, NP, or PA. In this national retrospective cohort study, we use 2012-2013 national Veterans Administration (VA) electronic health record data from 374 223 veterans to examine whether PCP type is associated with patient, clinic, and state-level factors representing medical and social complexity, adjusting for all variables simultaneously using a generalized logit model. Results indicate that patients with physician PCPs are modestly more medically complex than those with NP or PA PCPs. For the group having a Diagnostic Cost Group (DCG) score >2.0 compared with the group having DCG <0.5, odds of having an NP or a PA were lower than for having a physician PCP (NP odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.88; PA OR = 0.85, CI: 0.80-0.89). Social complexity is not consistently associated with PCP type. Overall, we found minor differences in provider type assignment. This study improves on previous work by using a large national dataset that accurately ascribes the work of NPs and PAs, analyzing at the patient level, analyzing NPs and PAs separately, and addressing social as well as medical complexity. This is a requisite step toward studies that compare patient outcomes by provider type

Tracheostomies of Patients With COVID-19: A Survey of Infection Reported by Health Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) performing tracheostomies in patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors underlying HCPs\u27 COVID-19 infection and determine whether tracheostomy providers report increased rates of infection. METHODS: An anonymous international survey examining factors associated with COVID-19 infection was made available November 2020 through July 2021 to HCPs at a convenience sample of hospitals, universities, and professional organizations. Infections reported were compared between HCPs involved in tracheostomy on patients with COVID-19 and HCPs who were not involved. RESULTS: Of the 361 respondents (from 33 countries), 50% (n = 179) had performed tracheostomies on patients with COVID-19. Performing tracheostomies on patients with COVID-19 was not associated with increased infection in either univariable (P = .06) or multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.90-2.46; P = .13). Working in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC) was associated with increased infection in both univariable (P \u3c .001) and multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 2.88; CI, 1.50-5.53; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Performing tracheostomy was not associated with COVID-19 infection, suggesting that tracheostomies can be safely performed in infected patients with appropriate precautions. However, HCPs in LMICs may face increased infection risk