Am I on Track? Evaluating Patient-Specific Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery Using an Outcomes Calculator

PURPOSE: Individual weight loss outcomes after bariatric surgery can vary considerably. As a result, identifying and assisting patients who are not on track to reach their weight loss goals can be challenging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a bariatric surgery outcomes calculator, which was formulated using a state-wide bariatric-specific data registry, predicted weight loss at 1 year after surgery was calculated on 658 patients who underwent bariatric surgery at 35 different bariatric surgery programs between 2015 and 2017. Patient characteristics, postoperative complications, and weight loss trajectories were compared between patients who met or exceeded their predicted weight loss calculation to those who did not based on observed to expected weight loss ratio (O:E) at 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: Patients who did not meet their predicted weight loss at 1 year (n = 237, 36%) had a mean O:E of 0.71, while patients who met or exceeded their prediction (n = 421, 63%) had a mean O:E = 1.14. At 6 months, there was a significant difference in the percent of the total amount of predicted weight loss between the groups (88% of total predicted weight loss for those that met their 1-year prediction vs 66% for those who did not, p \u3c 0.0001). Age, gender, procedure type, and risk-adjusted complication rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Using a bariatric outcomes calculator can help set appropriate weight-loss expectations after surgery and also identify patients who may benefit from additional therapy prior to reaching their weight loss nadir

Factors associated with completion of patient surveys 1 year after bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) obtained from follow-up survey data are essential to understanding the longitudinal effects of bariatric surgery. However, capturing data among patients who are well beyond the recovery period of surgery remains a challenge, and little is known about what factors may influence follow-up rates for PRO. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of hospital practices and surgical outcomes on patient survey completion rates at 1 year after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Prospective, statewide, bariatric-specific clinical registry. METHODS: Patients at hospitals participating in the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative are surveyed annually to obtain information on weight loss, medication use, satisfaction, body image, and quality of life following bariatric surgery. Hospital program coordinators were surveyed in June 2017 about their practices for ensuring survey completion among their patients. Hospitals were ranked based on 1-year patient survey completion rates between 2011 and 2015. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify associations between hospital practices, as well as 30-day outcomes, on hospital survey completion rankings. RESULTS: Overall, patient survey completion rates at 1 year improved from 2011 (33.9% ± 14.5%) to 2015 (51.0% ± 13.0%), although there was wide variability between hospitals (21.1% versus 77.3% in 2015). Hospitals in the bottom quartile for survey completion rates had higher adjusted rates of 30-day severe complications (2.6% versus 1.7%, respectively; P = .0481), readmissions (5.0% versus 3.9%, respectively; P = .0157), and reoperations (1.5% versus .7%, respectively; P = .0216) than those in the top quartile. While most hospital practices did not significantly impact survey completion at 1 year, physically handing out surveys during clinic visits was independently associated with higher completion rates (odds ratio, 13.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-93.03; P =.0078). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals vary considerably in completion rates of patient surveys at 1 year after bariatric surgery, and lower rates were associated with hospitals that had higher complication rates. Hospitals with the highest completion rates were more likely to physically hand surveys to patients during clinic visits. Given the value of PRO on longitudinal outcomes of bariatric surgery, improving data collection across multiple hospital systems is imperative

Racial variation in baseline characteristics and wait times among patients undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity and weight-related comorbid diseases, utilization rates are disproportionately low among non-white patients. We sought to understand if variation in baseline characteristics or access to care exists between white and non-white patients. METHODS: Using a statewide bariatric-specific data registry, we evaluated all patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2006 and 2020 and completed a preoperative baseline questionnaire, which included a question about self-identification of race. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and time from initial preoperative clinic evaluation to date of surgery were compared among racial groups. RESULTS: A total of 73,141 patients met inclusion criteria with 18,741 (25.5%) self-identified as non-white. These included Black/African American (n = 11,904), Hispanic (n = 3448), Asian (n = 121), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 41), Middle Eastern (n = 164), Multiple (n = 2047) and other (n = 608). Non-white males were the least represented group, accounting for only 4% of all bariatric cases performed. Non-white patients were more likely to be younger (43.0 years vs. 46.6 years, p \u3c 0.0001), disabled (16% vs. 11.4%, p \u3c 0.0001) and have Medicaid (8.4% vs. 3.8%, p \u3c 0.0001) when compared to white patients, despite having higher rates of college education (78.0% vs. 76.6, p \u3c 0.0001). In addition, median time from initial evaluation to surgery was also longer among non-white patients (157 days vs. 127 days, p \u3c 0.0001), despite having higher rates of patients with a body mass index above 50 kg/m(2) (39.0% vs. 33.2%, p \u3c 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-white patients undergoing bariatric surgery represent an extremely diverse group of patients with more socioeconomic disadvantages and longer wait times when compared to white patients despite presenting with higher rates of severe obesity. Current guidelines and referral patterns for bariatric surgery may not be equitable and need further examination when considering the management of obesity within diverse populations to reduce disparities in care-of which non-white males are particularly at risk

Risks and benefits of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in patients undergoing bariatric surgery

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97509/1/jhm2013.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97509/2/jhm2013-sup-0001-suppinfo.pd

Factors Associated With Achieving a Body Mass Index of Less Than 30 After Bariatric Surgery

Importance: Achieving a body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of less than 30 is an important goal of bariatric surgery, given the increased risk for weight-related morbidity and mortality with a BMI above this threshold. Objective: To identify predictors for achieving a BMI of less than 30 after bariatric surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective study used data from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative, a statewide quality improvement collaborative that uses a prospectively gathered clinical data registry. A total of 27 320 adults undergoing primary bariatric surgery between June 2006 and May 2015 at teaching and nonteaching hospitals in Michigan were included. Exposure: Bariatric surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Logistic regression was used to identify predictors for achieving a BMI of less than 30 at 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcome measures included 30-day postoperative complications and 1-year self-reported comorbidity remission. Results: A total of 9713 patients (36%; mean [SD] age, 46.9 [11.3] years; 16.6% male) achieved a BMI of less than 30 at 1 year after bariatric surgery. A significant predictor for achieving this goal was a preoperative BMI of less than 40 (odds ratio [OR], 12.88; 95% CI, 11.71-14.16; P \u3c .001). Patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, or duodenal switch were more likely to achieve a BMI of less than 30 compared with those who underwent adjustable gastric banding (OR, 8.37 [95% CI, 7.44-9.43]; OR, 21.43 [95% CI, 18.98-24.19]; and OR, 82.93 [95% CI, 59.78-115.03], respectively; P \u3c .001). Only 8.5% of patients with a BMI greater than 50 achieved a BMI of less than 30 after bariatric surgery. Patients who achieved a BMI of less than 30 had significantly higher reported rates of medication discontinuation for hyperlipidemia (60.7% vs 43.2%, P \u3c .001), diabetes (insulin: 67.7% vs 50.0%, P \u3c .001; oral medications: 78.5% vs 64.3%, P \u3c .001), and hypertension (54.7% vs 34.6%, P \u3c .001), as well as a significantly higher rate of sleep apnea remission (72.5% vs 49.3%, P \u3c .001) and higher satisfaction rate (92.8% vs 78.0%, P \u3c .001) compared with patients who did not. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with a preoperative BMI of less than 40 are more likely to achieve a BMI of less than 30 after bariatric surgery and are more likely to experience comorbidity remission. Policies and practice patterns that delay bariatric surgery until the BMI is 50 or greater can result in significantly inferior outcomes

Variation in Patient-reported Outcomes Across Hospitals Following Surgery

BACKGROUND: Although there is growing interest in applying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) toward surgical quality, the extent to which PROs vary across hospitals following surgical procedures is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We examined variation in PROs, specifically health-related quality of life (HRQOL), across hospitals performing bariatric surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: The Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative is a statewide consortium of 39 hospitals performing laparoscopic gastric bypass, gastric banding, or sleeve gastrectomy (n=11,420 patients between 2008 and 2012). MEASURES: We examined generic and disease-specific HRQOL measured by the Health and Activities Limitations Index (HALex) and Bariatric Quality of Life index (BQL) preoperatively and at 1 year. We measured the variation in postoperative HRQOL across hospitals, and the effect of risk and reliability adjustment on hospital ranking. RESULTS: In this cohort, HRQOL varied by 56% (HALex) and 37% (BQL) across hospitals. Patient factors accounted for 58% (HALex) to 71% (BQL) of the variation in HRQOL across hospitals. After risk and reliability adjustment, HRQOL varied by 18% (by HALex) and 14.5% (by BQL) across hospitals, and the proportion of patients who experienced a large improvement in HRQOL by HALex ranged from 33% to 69% and 67% to 92% by BQL. After adjusting for patient factors and reliability, these differences diminished to 55%-64% (HALex) and 79%-84% (BQL). CONCLUSIONS: Patient factors explain a large proportion of hospital-level variation in PROs following bariatric surgery, underscoring the importance of risk adjustment. However, some variation in PROs across hospitals remains unexplained, suggesting PROs may represent a viable indicator of hospital performance

Patient characteristics and outcomes among bariatric surgery patients with high narcotic overdose scores

BACKGROUND: Obesity-related chronic pain can increase the risk of narcotic abuse in bariatric surgery patients. However, assessment of overdose risk has not been evaluated to date. METHODS: A NARxCHECK® overdose score ( Narx score ) was obtained preoperatively on all patients undergoing bariatric surgery (n = 306) between 2018 and 2020 at a single-center academic bariatric surgery program. The 3-digit score ranges from 000 to 999 and is based on patient risk factors found within the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. A Narx score ≥ 200 indicates tenfold increased risk of narcotic overdose. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and emergency room (ER) visits were compared between patients in the upper (≥ 200) and lower (000) terciles of Narx scores. Morphine milligram equivalent (MME) prescribed at discharge and refills was also evaluated. RESULTS: Patients in the upper tercile represented 32% (n = 99) of the study population, and compared to the lower tercile (n = 101, 33%), were more likely to have depression (63.6% vs 38.6%, p = 0.0004), anxiety (47.5% vs 30.7%, p = 0.0150), and bipolar disorder (6.1% vs 0.0%, p = 0.0120). Median MME prescribed at discharge was the same between both groups (75); however, high-risk patients were more likely to be prescribed more than 10 tablets of a secondary opioid (83.3% vs 0.0%, p = 0.0111), which was prescribed by another provider in 67% of cases. ER visits among patients who did not have a complication or require a readmission was also higher among high-risk patients (7.8% vs 0.0%, p = 0.0043). There were no deaths or incidents of mental health-related ER visits in either group. CONCLUSION: Patients with a Narx score ≥ 200 were more likely to have mental health disorders and have potentially avoidable ER visits in the setting of standardized opioid prescribing practices. Narx scores can help reduce ER visits by identifying at-risk patients who may benefit from additional clinic or telehealth follow-up

Am I on Track? Evaluating Patient-Specific Weight Loss after Bariatric Surgery Using an Outcomes Calculator

Introduction: Individual weight loss outcomes after bariatric surgery can vary considerably. As a result, identifying and assisting patients who are not on track to reach their weight loss goals can be challenging. Methods: Using a bariatric surgery outcomes calculator formulated by the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative (MBSC), 1-year predicted weight loss was calculated for patients who underwent primary sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass between 2015 and 2018 and also had a minimum of 3 follow-up weights reported (n = 658). Observed to expected (O:E) ratios were calculated for all patients and weight loss trajectories were compared between patients who met or exceeded their predicted weight loss calculation (O:E ≥1) to those who did not (O:E\u3c1). Results: Patients who did not meet their 1-year predicted weight loss (n = 237, mean O:E = 0.71) had a lower mean preoperative BMI (46.7 kg/m2 vs 48.5 kg/m2, p = 0.0079), were more likely to be black (13.9% vs 8.2%, p = 0.023) and had higher rate of hypertension (59.1% vs 48.9%, p = 0.0124) when compared with patients who either met or exceeded their weight loss prediction (n = 421,mean O:E = 1.14). Patients who did not meet their weight loss prediction also had less mean total body weight loss (19.8% vs 29.6%, p \u3c 0.0001) and were noted to have a lower O:E ratio as early as 3 months after surgery (0.50 vs 0.58, p \u3c 0.0001). Conclusion: Using a bariatric-specific weight-loss calculator, individuals can determine if they are on track to meeting their predicted weight loss calculation as early as three months after surgery

Evaluating the Impact of Surgeon Self-Awareness by Comparing Self vs Peer Ratings of Surgical Skill and Outcomes for Bariatric Surgery

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variation in self vs. peer-assessments of surgical skill using surgical videos and compare surgeon-specific outcomes with bariatric surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Prior studies have demonstrated that surgeons with lower peer-reviewed ratings of surgical skill had higher complication rates after bariatric surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 25 surgeons who voluntarily submitted a video of a typical laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2015-2016. Videos were self and peer-rated using a validated instrument based on a 5-point Likert scale (5= master surgeon and 1= surgeon-in-training ). Risk adjusted 30-day complication rates were compared between surgeons who over-rated and under-rated their skill based on data from 24,186 SG cases as well as 12,888 gastric bypass (GBP) cases. RESULTS: Individual overall self-rating of surgical skill varied between 2.5 to 5. Surgeons in the top quartile for self:peer ratings (n=6, ratio 1.58) had lower overall mean peer-scores (2.98 vs 3.79, p = 0.0150) than surgeons in the lowest quartile (n = 6, ratio 0.94). Complication rates between top and bottom quartiles were similar after SG, however leak rates were higher with GBP among surgeons who over-rated their skill with sleeve gastrectomy (0.65 vs 0.27, p = 0.0181). Surgeon experience was similar between comparison groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Self-perceptions of surgical skill varied widely. Surgeons who over-rated their skill had higher leak rates for more complex procedures. Video assessments can help identify surgeons with poor self-awareness who may benefit from a surgical coaching program