Metabolic And Bariatric Surgery Accreditation And Quality Improvement Program Research Articles

Safety of Redo Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Primary Revisional Procedure

BackgroundInsufficient weight loss following primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) occasionally leads to revisional surgery. Few single institution studies have examined the safety of redo-LSG(RSG), with mixed results. ObjectivesEvaluate the 30-day Safety RSG compared to LSG. SettingUniversity of Southern California, United States; MBSAQIP database MethodsThe 2020-2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Registry was used to evaluate patients undergoing RSG. 30-day outcomes were evaluated using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic and linear regression. ResultsA total of 226,029 patients were reviewed; 1,454(0.7%) underwent RSG and 224,575(99.3%) underwent initial LSG. RSG patients were older (45y vs 42y), predominantly female (86.2% vs 81.3%), with lower BMI (kg/m2) (40.0 vs 43.4), and fewer comorbidities except for gastroesophageal reflux (38.7% vs 25.1%). RSG patients demonstrated increased overall complications (3.6% vs 2.1%, p<0.001), and longer operative time (81min vs 62min, p<0.001), but there was no difference in mortality. On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing RSG were independently associated with increased risk of overall postoperative complications (OR 1.493, p=0.018), organ space infection (OR 6.231, p<0.001), Staple line leak (12.838, p<0.001), pneumonia (3.85, p=0.013), ventilator requirement over 48hours (OR 6.404, p=0.035), sepsis (OR 4.397, p=0.010), septic shock (OR 8.669, p<0.001), reoperation (OR 1.808, p=0.013), readmission (OR 2.104, p<0.001), reintervention (OR 4.435, p<0.001), and longer operative times (β 12.790, p<0.001). ConclusionsIn this national database study, redo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is associated with increased rates of postoperative complications and operative time. While these results are concerning further studies are required to examine long-term outcomes.

Don't Fear the Bleed: Assessing Postoperative Bleeding Incidence After Instituting a Standardized Prophylactic Heparin Protocol in Bariatric Patients.

Background: Bariatric surgery is a frequently performed procedure in the United States, accounting for ∼40,000 procedures annually. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery are at high risk for postoperative thrombosis, with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate of up to 6.4%. Despite this risk, there is a lack of guidelines recommending postoperative VTE prophylaxis and it is not routine practice at most hospitals. The postoperative bleeding rate after bariatric surgery is only 1.5%; however, the risk of bleeding may lead to hesitancy for more liberal VTE prophylaxis. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of bariatric surgeries at a single institution in 2019 and 2021. Data were obtained from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) and electronic medical record review for all patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), or conversion to RYGB. The primary outcomes were composite bleeding events, which included postoperative transfusion, postoperative endoscopy or return to operating room (OR) (for bleeding), intra-abdominal hematoma, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, or incisional hematoma. Results: There were a total of 2067 patients in the cohort, with 1043 surgeries in 2019 and 1024 surgeries in 2021. There was no difference between bleeding events after instituting a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis protocol in 2021 (27 versus 28 events, P = .76). There was no difference in individual bleeding events between 2019 and 2021. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the rate of VTE between 2019 and 2021 (2 versus 5 events, P = .28). Conclusions: After instituting a standard protocol of prophylactic heparin postdischarge, we did not find an increased rate of bleeding events in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Thus, surgeons can consider prescribing postdischarge chemical VTE prophylaxis without concern for bleeding.

Rates and Risk Factors for 30-Day Morbidity After One-Stage Vertical Banded Gastroplasty Conversions: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background: The vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) is a historic restrictive bariatric operation often requiring further surgery. In this investigation utilizing the 2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) national dataset, we aim to better define the outcomes of VBG conversions.Methods: We queried the 2021 MBSAQIP dataset for patients who underwent a conversion from a VBG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Demographics, comorbidities, laboratory values, and additional patient factors were examined. Rates of key consequential outcome measures 30-day readmission, reoperation, reintervention, mortality, and a composite endpoint (at least 1 of the 4) were further calculated.Results: We identified 231 patients who underwent conversion from VBG to SG (n = 23), RYGB (n = 208), or other anatomy (n = 6), of which 93% of patients were female, and 22% of non-white race. The median age was 56years and body-mass index (BMI) was 43kg/m2. The most common surgical indications included weight considerations (48%), reflux (25%), anatomic causes (eg, stricture, fistula, and ulcer; 10%), and dysphagia (6.5%). Thirty-day morbidity rates included reoperation (7.8%), readmission (9.1%), reintervention (4.3%), mortality (.4%), and the composite endpoint (15%). Upon bivariate analysis, we did not identify any specific risk factor for the 30-day composite endpoint.Discussion: One-stage VBG conversions to traditional bariatric anatomy are beset with higher 30-day morbidity relative to primary procedures. Additional MBSAQIP data will be required for aggregation, to better characterize the risk factors inherent in these operations.

From database to practice: the MBSAQIP in the surgical literature

BackgroundThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) has been a game changer for metabolic and bariatric (MBS) surgeons, with continuous improvements in safety and outcomes throughout the years of its usage. It allows in-depth evaluations of MBS procedures, presenting practitioners and researchers with unparalleled opportunities for quality assessment, research and clinical advancement. ObjectivesTo offer an updated overview of MBSAQIP-related publications. SettingUnited States. MethodsPubMed was queried using keywords “MBSAQIP” and “Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program.” Letters to editors, duplicates, commentaries, and retracted articles were excluded. Studies that mentioned MBSAQIP but did not use the data within were also excluded. ResultsA total of 400 search items were returned as of August 2023. After exclusions, 289 studies were reviewed. Articles were published in a total of 28 unique journals, the majority of which were featured in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (SOARD), with 114 articles (39.4%). Sixty-one articles were focused on creating predictive models or risk calculators, 58 on investigating the safety of procedures, and 52 on exploring complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were the 2 most commonly discussed procedures, at 80.3% and 80% respectively. Forty-three studies included patients who underwent robotic-assisted MBS. ConclusionsThe MBSAQIP is a valuable resource that has generated a wealth of studies in the literature. It has allowed for intense analysis of clinical issues and fostered a culture of safety and quality improvement. Participating surgeons must pledge commitment to extended follow-up periods to maximize its effectiveness.

Characterization of Early Small Bowel Obstructions Following Elective Bariatric Surgery.

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) after bariatric surgery is an uncommon but important complication. We sought to characterize bariatric surgery patients who developed SBO, to compare 30-day complications, and to determine the influence of patient and procedure factors on the development of SBO. All data was extracted from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database using the 2020 operative year. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to determine the influence of patient and operative factors on the development of SBO. Of a total of 142 111 patients, 408 (0.3%) were identified as having developed an SBO. SBO patients were older (45.7 ± 11.5 vs. 43.5 ± 11.9years; p = 0.0002), of reduced BMI (43.6 ± 6.8 vs. 45.1 ± 7.7; p = 0.0001), and more likely to be of female sex (92.2% vs. 81.1%; p < 0.0001). At 30days post-operation, serious complications were increased in SBO patients. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was the largest independent predicator of the development of SBO (OR 11.91; 95% CI 8.92-15.90; p < 0.0001). With regard to patient factors, COPD (OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.54-4.38; p < 0.0001) and prior DVT (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.49-3.77; p < 0.0001) were found to be independently predictive of the development of SBO. Additionally having a lower BMI and being of female sex were found to be independently predictive. SBO occurred in approximately 0.3% of MBSAQIP cases. SBO is associated with serious outcome measures and patients of female sex and reduced index BMI, and those undergoing RYGB may be at an increased risk.

First Assistant In Bariatric Surgery: A Comparison Between Laparoscopic And Robotic Approaches: A 4-Year Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database (2016-2019).

The first assistant (FA) plays an important role in the operating room for bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the type of FA and operative time (OT) and postoperative outcomes comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches in bariatric surgery. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) data for 2016-2019 was queried. Log-normal regression was performed to evaluate the association of FAs and OT variations within and between groups. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between the type of FA and 30-day outcomes across all procedures and approaches. A total of 691,789 patients who underwent robotic (R), and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass (RYGB), and duodenal switch (DS) were included. The percentage variation of OT was higher in the laparoscopic group (L-SG: 8.18%, L-RYGB: 9.88%, and L-DS: 15.00%) compared to the robotic group (R-SG: 2.43%, R-RYGB: 5.76%, and R-DS: 0.80%). There was not a significant difference in 30-day outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for the same procedures. The FA was associated with a decreased variability in OT in the robotic cohort compared to the laparoscopic group with no significant difference in complication rates. These results suggest that the robotic approach may decrease the need for skilled FAs in bariatric procedures.

Updates in Bariatric Surgery.

Bariatric surgery is currently the most effective long-term treatment for morbid obesity as well as type-2 diabetes mellitus. The field of metabolic and bariatric surgery has seen tremendous growth over the past decade with dramatically reduced risks. This article aims to provide an update on bariatric surgery, highlighting the latest outcomes, improvements, and challenges in the field. Recently, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) released a major update to the indications for bariatric surgery at BMI ≥35kg/m2 regardless of co-morbidities and 30-34.9kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities. Sleeve gastrectomy has emerged as the most popular bariatric procedure in the last 10years with its remarkable efficacy and safety profile. The implementation of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have significantly improved the quality of care for all bariatric patients. The recent introduction and FDA approval of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for chronic obesity has garnered significant media coverage and popularity, but no guidelines exist regarding its use in relation to bariatric surgery. This update underscores the need for tailored approaches, ongoing research, and the integration of evidence-based medicine and innovations to enhance patient care.

Adolescent Bariatric Surgery Programs: Progress in Pennsylvania

Objective: In 2019 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called for increased access to Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (MBS). To understand adolescent weight loss programs offering MBS in Pennsylvania, a survey was completed. Methods: Adolescent weight loss centers in Pennsylvania offering MBS were identified using the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) on-line directory and Google search. Phone interviews were conducted with the director of each program. Results: Eight programs were identified. Operations were performed in seven adult hospitals. Six had Comprehensive Adolescent Accreditation through the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). A total of 92 adolescents were operated on in the year from June 2021 to July 2022 which is an 84% increase from the preceding year. Ninety patients received a sleeve gastrectomy. Adult bariatric surgeons were involved in all operations. Six of the programs were led by diplomates of the American Board of Obesity Medicine. Each clinic had a psychologist. No program had all eight of the health care professionals recommended by the authors, but two programs had seven of the eight. In addition, three included a social worker, two an exercise physiologist and two had pediatric subspecialists incorporated into the clinic. Two programs had the operating surgeon caring for patients in the multidisciplinary clinic. Conclusion: This survey of programs across Pennsylvania shows an increase in the number of bariatric operations. More progress is necessary to improve access to this service and improve the quality of programs in Pennsylvania.

Third time's a charm: band to sleeve to bypass.

Adjustable gastric bands (AGB) are frequently converted to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to weight recurrence or band complications. Such conversions carry a higher-risk than primary procedures. Some patients undergo two conversions-from AGB to SG, and subsequently from SG to RYGB. This presents a unique situation with limited literature on indications and complication rates associated with these double conversions. We examined the 2020-2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use File to evaluate conversions from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. Patient and operative characteristics, along with outcomes, were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were applied. We identified 276 patients who underwent a conversion from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. The primary reason for the second conversion (SG to RYGB) was gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) at 55.1%, followed by inadequate weight loss or weight regain (IWL/WR) at 36.9%. The remaining reasons included dysphagia, nausea, vomiting, or others. Patients converted for IWL/WR demonstrated a higher baseline body mass index and prevalence of sleep apnea compared to other cohorts (both p < 0.001). Meanwhile, patients in the "other reasons" group had the highest rate of open surgical approaches (9.1%) and concurrent lysis of adhesions (p = 0.001 and p = 0.022), with correspondingly higher rates of anastomotic leak, reoperations, serious complications, and mortality. Patients undergoing double conversions (AGB to SG to RYGB) do so primarily for GERD or IWL/WR. Further research is required to better define the optimal primary operation for each patient, aiming to reduce the necessity for multiple conversions.

National usage of bariatric surgery for class I obesity: an analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program.

National and international consensus statements, as well as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), support the use of bariatric surgery for the treatment of class I obesity. Despite this, most payors within the United States limit reimbursement to the outdated 1991 NIH guidelines or a similar adaptation. This study aimed to determine the safety of bariatric surgery in patients with lower BMI compared with standard patients, as well as determine U.S. utilization of bariatric surgery in class I obesity in 2015-2019. A retrospective analysis was performed of the 2015-2019 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients were divided into body mass index cohorts: class I obesity (<35 kg/m2) and severe obesity (≥35 kg/m2). Differences in preoperative patient selection and postoperative outcomes were established, and frequency trends were delineated. Analysis included 760,192 surgeries with 8129 (1%) for patients with class I obesity. The patients with class I obesity were older, more commonly female, and with lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, but with higher rates of type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (P < .05). Variation was found for operative time, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and composite morbidity. Minimal annual variation was found for bariatric surgeries performed for patients with class I obesity. The short-term safety of bariatric surgery in patients with class I obesity was corroborated by this study. Despite consensus statements and robust support, rates of bariatric surgery in patients with class I obesity have failed to increase and remain limited to 1%. This demonstrates the impact of the outdated 1991 NIH guidelines regarding access to care for these potentially life-saving surgeries.

Does the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program bariatric risk/benefit calculator hold its weight? An assessment of its accuracy

BackgroundBariatric clinical calculators have already been implemented in clinical practice to provide objective predictions of complications and outcomes. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator is the most comprehensive risk calculator in bariatric surgery. ObjectivesEvaluate the accuracy of the calculator predictions regarding the 30-day complication risk, 1-year weight loss outcomes, and comorbidity resolution. SettingMBSAQIP-accredited center. MethodsAll adult patients who underwent primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy at our institution between 2012 and 2019 were included. Baseline characteristics were used to generate the individualized outcome predictions for each patient through the bariatric risk calculator and were compared to actual patient outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using c-statistics, linear regression models, and McNemmar chi-square test. ResultsOne thousand four hundred fifty-three patients with a median age of 45 (37, 55) and consisting of 80.1% females were included in the study. The c-statistics for the complications and comorbidity resolution ranged from .533 for obstructive sleep apnea remission to .675 for 30-day reoperation. The number of comorbidity resolutions predicted by the calculator was significantly higher than the actual remissions for diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea (P < .001). On average, the calculator body mass index (BMI) predictions deviated from the observed BMI measurement by 3.24 kg/m2. The RYGB procedure (Coef −.89; P = .005) and preoperative BMI (Coef −.4; P = .012) were risk factors associated with larger absolute difference between the predicted and observed BMI. ConclusionsThe MBSAQIP Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator prediction models for 1-year BMI, 30-day reoperation, and reintervention risks were fairly well calibrated with an acceptable level of discrimination except for obstructive sleep apnea remission. The 1-year BMI estimations were less accurate for RYGB patients and cases with very high or low preoperative BMI measurements. Therefore, the bariatric risk calculator constitutes a helpful tool that has a place in preoperative counseling.

Predicting readmission after bariatric surgery using machine learning.

While bariatric surgery is an effective method for achieving long-term weight loss, postoperative readmissions are associated with negative clinical outcomes and significant costs. We aimed to use machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict readmissions and compare results to logistic regression. Hospitals participating in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, United States. Patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch between 2016 and 2020 were selected from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. Patient variables reported by the MBSAQIP database were analyzed by ML algorithms random forest (RF), gradient boosting (XGB), and deep neural networks (NN), and the results of the predictive models were compared to logistic regression using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Our study included 863,348 patients, of which 39,068 (4.52%) were readmitted. AUROC scores were XGB .785 (95% CI .784-.786), RF .785 (95% CI .784-.785), and NN .754 (95% CI .753-.754), compared with .62 (95% CI .62-.621) for logistic regression (LR) (P < .001). The sensitivity and specificity for XGB, the best performing model, were 73.81% and 70%, compared with 52.94% and 70% for logistic regression. The most important variables were intervention or reoperation prior to discharge, unplanned ICU admission, initial procedure, and the intraoperative transfusion. ML demonstrates significant advantages over logistic regression when predicting 30-day readmission following bariatric surgery. With external validation, models could identify the best candidates for early discharge or targeted postdischarge resources.

Revisional bariatric surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease: characterizing patient and procedural factors and 30-day outcomes for a retrospective cohort of 4412 patients.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a well-established potential consequence of bariatric surgery and can require revisional surgery. Our understanding of the population requiring revision is limited. In this study, we aim to characterize patients requiring revisional surgery for GERD to understand their perioperative risks and identify strategies to improve their outcomes. Using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry, a retrospective cohort of patients who required revisional surgery for GERD in 2020 was identified. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to assess correlations between baseline characteristics and morbidity. 4412 patients required revisional surgery for GERD, encompassing 24% of all conversion procedures. In most cases, patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as their original surgery (n = 3535, 80.1%). The revisional surgery for most patients was a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n = 3722, 84.4%). Major complications occurred in 527 patients (11.9%) and 10 patients (0.23%) died within 30days of revisional surgery. Major complications included anastomotic leak in 31 patients (0.70%) and gastrointestinal bleeding in 38 patients (0.86%). Multivariable analyses revealed that operative length, pre-operative antacid use, and RYGB were predictors of major complications. GERD is the second most common indication for revisional surgery in patients who have undergone bariatric surgery. Patients who underwent SG as their initial procedure were the primary group who required revisional surgery for GERD; most underwent revision via RYGB. Further inquiry is needed to tailor operative approaches and pre-operative optimization for revisional surgery patients.

Outcomes after metabolic and bariatric surgery in preteens versus teens using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database and center-specific data.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently released clinical guidelines for the treatment of childhood obesity, including surgery being appropriate for children 13 years of age and older. The use of this age cut-off was due to a lack of data for children younger than 13. To address this knowledge gap, the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was queried to compare outcomes in preteens to teens after bariatric surgery hypothesizing that there would be no difference in outcomes between the two groups. Patients from the MSAQIP database (2016-2021) were identified and divided into groups <13 years and 13-18 years and were matched using propensity scores based on race, sex, and preoperative BMI. Outcomes were compared including change in BMI, complication rates, 30-day readmission or reoperation, and mortality. Additionally, the centers responsible for the bulk of the preteen patient entries queried their center-specific databases to evaluate weight loss over time. A total of 4755 patients were identified, 47 of whom were <13 years of age. Preteens had similar sex distribution (66% vs. 75% female), were more likely to be Black (27.7% vs. 18.3%) or Hispanic (21.3% vs. 7.6%) race, and weighed less (274 ± 58 vs. 293 ± 85 lb, p = 0.01), but they had similar BMI (46.9 ± 7 vs. 47 ± 13 kg/m2 ) as their teen counterparts. Preteens were more likely to suffer from sleep apnea (34% vs. 19%, p < 0.01) and insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes (10.6% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.01). There were no complications in the preteens compared to teens (0% vs. 0.5%), and they did not undergo any unplanned readmissions (0% vs. 2.9%) or reoperations (0% vs. 0.8%) within 30 days of surgery. There were also no mortalities reported in preteens (0% vs. 0.1%). The risk-adjusted decrease in BMI between preteens and teens was also comparable at 30 days (4.2 [95% CI: 3.0-5.4] vs. 4.6 [95% CI: 4.4-4.7], p = 0.6). Decrease in BMI in preteens was 7 ± 3 kg/m2 at 3 months and 9 ± 4 kg/m2 at 12 months after surgery, which represented a percentage BMI change of 16 ± 7 and 20 ± 8, respectively. This study demonstrates that bariatric surgery in preteens is safe and efficacious when performed at specialized centers, and that age criteria may not be required. The AAP and others are encouraged to include age cut-offs in their guidelines for children with obesity and bariatric surgery only when data are available to support their inclusion.

When do leaks occur? An analysis of the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program.

Leak is a feared complication of bariatric surgeries. Time to presentation is important in their management. We used the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) to evaluate the rate and timing of leaks. To determine when leaks present after bariatric surgery. MBSAQIP database. The MBSAQIP Participant Use Files (PUF) for the years 2015-2020 were evaluated. Outcomes of interest were "organ space infection" and "leak." We evaluated the time to presentation for these variables as well as patient characteristics, operative time, complication rates and 30-day outcomes. There were 370,369 sleeve gastrectomies (SG) and 159,280 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (RYGB). We identified 598 (.16%) SG leaks with an average time to presentation of 13.2 ± 7.8 days. For RYGB, there were 520 leaks (.32%) with an average time to presentation of 9.5 ± 7.4 days. Both procedures had longer operative times for the patients with leak; RYGB was 115 minutes versus 131 minutes and SG was 67 minutes versus 77 minutes (both P < .01). SG and RYGB patients with a leak had a higher relative risk (RR) of grade 4 and 5 Clavien-Dindo complication rates. RR of mortality rates in SG patients with leak was 35.2 (confidence interval (CI): 20-61) and in RYGB with leak was 31.4 (CI: 19-50). The length of time for SG leak presentation was more delayed than RYGB leak presentation. Surgeons should be vigilant for leaks for at least 3 weeks after surgery. Leaks increase the mortality rate and overall serious complications.

The Impact of Trainee Involvement on Outcomes in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

The number of bariatric operations performed in the USA rises annually. Trainee exposure to this field is necessary to ensure competency in future surgical generations. However, the safety of trainee involvement of these operations has been called into question. The aim of our study is to describe differences in outcomes between trainees and non-trainees as first assistants (FA) in sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database METHODS: Patients from the MBSAQIP database who underwent primary SG from 2015 to 2020 were identified. Statistical analysis included two-tailed t-tests and χ2-tests to evaluate the impact of trainees (residents and fellows) compared to non-trainees on post-operative morbidity and operative time. Of the 559,324 cases, 25.8% were performed with trainees as FA. Operative length was 27.9% longer in trainee cases. In the trainee group, there was a higher risk of conversion to open procedure (OR 1.32), readmission (OR 1.19), and specific complications (cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, progressive renal insufficiency, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, transfusion, intubation, UTI, VTE, ICU admission, and reintervention), though overall rates were < 1% in each group. Non-trainees had a higher rate of septic shock (OR 1.4). No significant difference was seen in all other perioperative outcomes. Trainee involvement in SG leads to longer operative times without a clinically significant increase in morbidity and mortality. Such findings should be used to counsel patients and shape expectations for surgeons and hospitals. A focused bariatric surgery trainee curriculum may lessen this gap.

Lessons learned from the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program site surveys: common deficiencies and corrective actions

BackgroundThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) is a joint program between the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the American College of Surgeons (ACS). On-site surveys of the applicant programs to determine adherence to the MBSAQIP standards are a hallmark of the accreditation process. ObjectivesA retrospective review of 619 site surveys completed over 2 years was performed to include analysis of reviewer decisions, tabulation and cross-reference of identified deficiencies to the MBSAQIP standards and determine final disposition of corrective actions and overall accreditation rates. SettingAccredited Hospitals (Community and Academic) within MBSAQIP. MethodsThis is a retrospective review of site surveys by expert panel. Results≥1 MBSAQIP Standards deficiencies were present at 149 of the 619 program site surveys (24.07%). The 3 leading Standards in Deficiency were in order: Commitment to Quality Care, Continuous Quality Improvement Process, and Data Collection. Within a year following initial site survey of the149 programs with Standards deficiencies, 59 programs demonstrated compliance, 83 programs were placed on probation (with a specific time-frame to demonstrate compliance) and 7 programs were denied accreditation. Ultimately, 98.9% of programs were able to gain or maintain MBSAQIP accreditation. ConclusionsThe MBSAQIP accreditation through on-site surveys can identify and improve program adherence to MBSAQIP standards.

MBSAQIP database: are the data reliable?

BackgroundThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database collects data from all accredited centers in the US. A prior study showed data quality issues limiting use of up to 20% of the 2015 database. ObjectivesTo evaluate the completeness and data quality (internal validity, accuracy, and consistency) of the MBSAQIP database between 2015 and 2019. SettingUnited States. MethodsAll subsets of data from the MBSAQIP Participant User Data File (PUDF) were compiled into one main file. Completeness, internal validity, accuracy, and consistency were evaluated. Completeness was determined via missing values. Internal validity was assessed using the percentage of patients with a body mass index (BMI) < 30 kg/m2 who underwent primary bariatric surgery. Accuracy was evaluated using reported versus calculated BMI. Consistency was assessed using the percentage of patients with a gain of >5 or a loss of >20 units of BMI change in 30 days. Effects across years were assessed using a chi-squared test. ResultsMissing data for age, BMI, and ASA was consistently low (<2.5%) with no significant difference across years. Only .02% of patients who underwent a primary bariatric procedure had a reported BMI <30 kg/m2. The mean difference between reported versus calculated BMI was −.02 units. A maximum of .33% of patients gained >5 units of BMI, and a maximum of .85% of patients lost > 20 units of BMI in early follow-up. ConclusionsWhile the MBSAQIP is a database with acceptable data quality and minimal changes from 2015–2019, ongoing efforts are needed to improve data.

Monitoring performance in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative sum at 2 high-volume centers.

Traditional surgical outcomes are measured retrospectively and intermittently, limiting opportunities for early intervention. The objective of this study was to use risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) to track perioperative surgical outcomes for laparoscopic gastric bypass. We hypothesized that RA-CUSUM could identify performance variations between surgeons. Two mid-Atlantic quaternary care academic centers. Patient-level data from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) were abstracted for laparoscopic gastric bypasses performed by 3 surgeons at 2 high-volume centers from 2014 to 2021. Estimated probabilities of serious complications, reoperation, and readmission were derived from the MBSAQIP risk calculator. RA-CUSUM curves were generated to signal observed-to-expected odds ratios (ORs) of 1.5 (poor performance) and .5 (superior performance). Control limits were set based on a false positive rate of 5% (α = .05). We included 1192 patients: Surgeon A = 767, Surgeon B = 188, and Surgeon C = 237. Overall rates of serious complications, 30-day reoperations, and 30-day readmissions were 3.9%, 2.5%, and 5.2% respectively, with expected rates of 4.7%, 2.2%, and 5.8%. RA-CUSUM signaled lower-than-expected (OR < .5) rates of readmission and serious complication in Surgeon A, and higher-than-expected (OR > 1.5) readmission rate in Surgeon C. Surgeon A further demonstrated an early period of higher-than-expected (OR > 1.5) reoperation rate before April 2015, followed by superior performance thereafter (OR < .5). Surgeon B's performance generally reflected expected standards throughout the study period. RA-CUSUM adjusts for clinical risk factors and identifies performance outliers in real-time. This approach to analyzing surgical outcomes is applicable to quality improvement, root-cause analysis, and surgeon incentivization.

Comparative analysis of sleeve conversions of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program 2020 Database

BackgroundAlthough the sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the dominant bariatric procedure, studies have shown conversion rates of up to 30%. These conversions are generally for weight regain (WR), insufficient weight loss (IWL) or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Before 2020, details on why conversions were being performed were not collected in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF). Now, the indication for sleeve conversion is noted in the PUF, allowing identification and reporting sleeve conversion reasons. ObjectiveWe aimed to examine the reasons for SG conversions nationwide. SettingThe 2020 MBSAQIP PUF. MethodsThe 2020 MBSAQIP PUF was examined to determine the reasons why SG were converted to other operations. The data field of “Revision/Conversion Final Indication” was used along with “Procedure type.” Primary bariatric operations were excluded. Descriptive statistics were applied. Different reasons for conversion and operations were compared by preoperative characteristics and operative outcomes. ResultsThere were 103,782 primary SG reported in the 2020 PUF. There were 7181 SG that were converted to other operations. The most common conversion (86.2%) was to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The main reason for SG conversion was GERD at 48.4%, followed by WR/IWL (41.9%). Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve patients differed significantly from RYGB patients in specific preoperative characteristics and operative outcomes. ConclusionThe most common procedure SG is converted to is the RYGB. GERD was the most common reason for SG conversion, followed by WR/IWL.