19 research outputs found

    Pregnancy outcomes following different types of bariatric surgery: A national cohort study

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of type of bariatric surgery on pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This is a national prospective observational study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). Data collection was undertaken in 200 consultant-led NHS maternity units between November 2011 and October 2012 (gastric banding), and April 2014 and March 2016 (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy). Participants were pregnant women following gastric banding (n = 127), gastric bypass (n = 134) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 29). Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared using generalised linear and linear mixed models. Maternal outcomes included gestational weight gain, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, anaemia, surgical complications. Perinatal outcomes included birthweight, small/large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), preterm birth, stillbirth. RESULTS: Maternal: Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of anaemia compared with gastric bypass (banding (16 %) vs bypass (39 %): p = 0.002, sleeve (21 %) vs bypass: p = 0.04). Gestational diabetes risk was lower after gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (7 % vs 16 %, p = 0.03) despite women with banding having significantly greater weight at booking as well as gestational weight gain. Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of surgical complications than after gastric bypass (banding (0.9 %) vs bypass (11.4 %): p = 0.03, sleeve (0.0 %) vs bypass: p = 0.06). Perinatal: Infants born to mothers after gastric banding had a higher birthweight than those born to mothers after gastric bypass (mean difference = 260 g (125-395), p < 0.001). Infants were more likely to be LGA if their mothers had gastric banding compared with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy (banding (21 %) vs bypass (5 %): p = 0.006; banding vs sleeve (3 %): p = 0.03). Risk of preterm birth was higher in women with gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (13 % vs 8 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women planning bariatric surgery should be counselled regarding the differing impacts of different types of procedure on any future pregnancy. Pre-existing gastric bypass is associated with higher rates of potentially serious surgical complications during pregnancy

    Pregnancy outcomes following different types of bariatric surgery: a national cohort study

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of type of bariatric surgery on pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This is a national prospective observational study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). Data collection was undertaken in 200 consultant-led NHS maternity units between November 2011 and October 2012 (gastric banding), and April 2014 and March 2016 (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy). Participants were pregnant women following gastric banding (n = 127), gastric bypass (n = 134) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 29). Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared using generalised linear and linear mixed models. Maternal outcomes included gestational weight gain, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, anaemia, surgical complications. Perinatal outcomes included birthweight, small/large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), preterm birth, stillbirth. RESULTS: Maternal: Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of anaemia compared with gastric bypass (banding (16 %) vs bypass (39 %): p = 0.002, sleeve (21 %) vs bypass: p = 0.04). Gestational diabetes risk was lower after gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (7 % vs 16 %, p = 0.03) despite women with banding having significantly greater weight at booking as well as gestational weight gain. Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of surgical complications than after gastric bypass (banding (0.9 %) vs bypass (11.4 %): p = 0.03, sleeve (0.0 %) vs bypass: p = 0.06). Perinatal: Infants born to mothers after gastric banding had a higher birthweight than those born to mothers after gastric bypass (mean difference = 260 g (125-395), p &lt; 0.001). Infants were more likely to be LGA if their mothers had gastric banding compared with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy (banding (21 %) vs bypass (5 %): p = 0.006; banding vs sleeve (3 %): p = 0.03). Risk of preterm birth was higher in women with gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (13 % vs 8 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women planning bariatric surgery should be counselled regarding the differing impacts of different types of procedure on any future pregnancy. Pre-existing gastric bypass is associated with higher rates of potentially serious surgical complications during pregnancy.</p

    Detection of methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 after curative‐intent treatment as a prognostic indicator for colorectal cancer recurrence

    No full text
    Abstract Background The risk of recurrence after completion of curative‐intent treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is hard to predict. Post‐treatment assaying for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is an encouraging approach for stratifying patients for therapy, but the prognostic value of this approach is less explored. This study aimed to determine if detection of methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 following completion of initial treatment identified patients with a poorer recurrence‐free survival (RFS). Methods 142 CRC stage I‐III cases with at least 2 years of follow up (unless recurrence was evident sooner) and a methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 test result between 2 weeks and 12 months after completion of initial treatment were eligible for study inclusion. The association between BCAT1/IKZF1 and RFS was assessed by the log‐rank (Mantel‐Cox) method. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used for multivariable survival analysis. Results Thirty‐three (23.2%) had recurrence at a median 1.6y (interquartile range: 0.8–2.4). Methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 was detected in 19 of the 142 patients (13.4%) and was associated with a significant risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 5.7, 95%CI: 1.9–17.3, p = 0.002). Three‐year RFS for patients with or without detectable methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 was 56.5% and 83.3%, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that detection of methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 (HR = 2.6, p = 0.049) and site of the primary tumor (HR = 4.2, p = 0.002) were the only significant prognostic indicators of poor RFS. Conclusions BCAT1/IKZF1 methylation testing after curative‐intent treatment is an independent prognostic indicator for RFS and identifies a subgroup at high risk. Personalized surveillance is warranted for patients with these ctDNA biomarkers detectable after curative‐intent treatment
    corecore