Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:With the continued increase in bariatric procedures being performed in the USA, a growing percentage are revisions for weight regain after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric banding (LAGB). Standard practice in the USA involves conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Internationally, one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has become a popular and effective alternative. Without the jejuno-jejunal anastomosis, OAGB has reduced potential related long-term complications. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term safety of revision to OAGB versus RYGB. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients who underwent conversion to OAGB from LAGB or SG for weight regain from January 2019 to October 2021 were compared to BMI, sex, and age-matched patients who underwent conversion to RYGB. RESULTS:In our study, 82 patients were included, 41 in each cohort (41 OAGB vs. 41 RYGB). The majority in both groups underwent conversion from SG (71% vs. 78%). Operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were comparable. There was no difference in 30-day complications (9.8% vs. 12.2%, p = .99) or reoperation (4.9% vs. 4.9%, p = .99). Mean weight loss at 1 month was also comparable (7.91 lbs vs 6.36 lbs). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing conversion to OAGB for weight regain had similar operative times, post-operative complication rates, and 1-month weight loss compared to those who underwent RYGB. While more research is needed, this early data suggests that OAGB and RYGB provide comparable outcomes when used as conversion procedures for to failed weight loss. Therefore, OAGB may present a safe alternative to RYGB.

BACKGROUND:Patients infected with novel COVID-19 virus have a spectrum of illnesses ranging from asymptomatic to death. Data have shown that age, sex, and obesity are strongly correlated with poor outcomes in COVID-19-positive patients. Bariatric surgery is the only treatment that provides significant, sustained weight loss in the severely obese. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Examine if prior bariatric surgery correlates with increased risk of hospitalization and outcome severity after COVID-19 infection. SETTING/METHODS:test or Fisher's exact test. Additionally, overall length of stay and duration of time in intensive care unit (ICU) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Conditional logistic regression analyses were done to determine both unadjusted (UOR) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR). RESULTS:(SD = 6.5, P < .0001). There was also less burden of diabetes in the bariatric group (32%) compared with the control group (48%) (P = .0019). Patients with a history of bariatric surgery were less likely to be admitted through the emergency room (UOR = .39, P = .0001), less likely to require a ventilator during the admission (UOR=.42, P = .028), had a shorter length of stay in both the ICU (P = .033) and overall (UOR = .44, P = .0002), and were less likely to be deceased at discharge compared with the control group (OR = .42, P = .028). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A history of bariatric surgery significantly decreases the risk of emergency room admission, mechanical ventilation, prolonged ICU stay, and death in patients with COVID-19. Even when adjusted for BMI and the co-morbidities associated with obesity, patients with a history of bariatric surgery still have a significant decrease in the risk of emergency room admission.

BACKGROUND:Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are often used as revisional surgeries for a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). There is debate over which procedure provides better long-term weight loss. OBJECTIVE:To compare the weight loss results of these 2 surgeries. SETTING/METHODS:University hospital, United States. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of all LAGB to RYGB and LAGB to LSG surgeries performed at a single institution. Primary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), percent excess BMI lost, and percent weight loss. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications and reoperations. RESULTS:The cohort included 192 conversions from LAGB to RYGB and 283 LAGB to LSG. The baseline age and BMI were similar in the 2 groups. Statistical comparisons made between the 2 groups at 24 months postconversion were significant for BMI (RYGB = 32.93, LSG = 38.34, P = .0004), percent excess BMI lost (RYGB = 57.8%, LSG = 29.3%, P < .0001), and percent weight loss (RYGB = 23.4%, LSG = 12.6%, P < .0001). However, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of reoperation (7.3% versus 1.4%, P = .0022), longer operating room time (RYGB = 120.1 min versus LSG = 115.5 min, P < .0001), and longer length of stay (RYGB = 3.33 d versus LSG = 2.11 d, P < .0001) than the LAGB to LSG group. Although not significant, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of readmission (7.3% versus 3.5%, P = .087). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Weight loss is significantly greater for patients undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB than LAGB to LSG. However, those undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB had higher rates of reoperation and readmission. Patients looking for the most effective weight loss surgery after failed LAGB should be advised to have RYGB performed, while also understanding the increased risks of the procedure.

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer of women in the US. In November 2014, the Women's Heart Alliance (WHA) launched a nationwide campaign to increase physician awareness and action toward women's heart risk Methods: Survey data collection from May 6-12, 2014 used the ERI (Research Now) Physician and Healthcare Professional Panel (HCP), an online invitation-only database based on AMA data and verified. The survey included 200 Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) and 100 cardiologists, currently in practice >3 yrs. Overall; >33% of PCPs and OB/GYN patients, and >21% of cardiologists' patients were female Results: Heart disease was a top concern for 39% PCPs. Among the AHA guideline-recommended heart risk assessment items for women, 16% of PCPs and 22% cardiologists implemented all eight. Only 22% of PCPs and 42% of cardiologists feel well prepared to assess heart disease risk in women. While a majority of cardiologists and PCPs are aware of the ASCVD Risk Assessment Calculator, current usage is below 50%s in both groups (Figure). A majority of PCPs (87%) and cardiologists (82%) were favorable towards a national campaign Conclusions: Heart disease in women is not a top-tier concern for PCPs or cardiologists. Physician awareness and use of heart risk assessment is low, and a majority are supportive of a national campaign Strategies to improve healthcare provider awareness and action for heart risk assessment practice gaps are needed