Black-vs-white racial disparities in 30-day outcomes following primary and revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery: a MBSAQIP database analysis.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1007/s00464-025-11564-0
Soomin Lee, Matthew M Hutter, James J Jung
{"title":"Black-vs-white racial disparities in 30-day outcomes following primary and revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery: a MBSAQIP database analysis.","authors":"Soomin Lee, Matthew M Hutter, James J Jung","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-11564-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous studies have demonstrated Black-vs-White disparities in postoperative outcomes following primary metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). With the rising prevalence of MBS, it is important to examine racial disparities using quality indicators in primary and revisional procedures. This study explores Black-vs-White disparities in postoperative outcomes following primary and revisional MBS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an observational cohort study using the 2015-2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database of adults who underwent primary or revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, or one-anastomosis gastric bypass. Black and White patients were 1:1 matched using propensity scores across 19 covariates for primary and revisional MBS groups. McNemar's tests were used to compare 11 postoperative outcomes from the MBSAQIP semi-annual report and death, between matched cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 112,495 Black and 434,266 White primary MBS and 10,838 Black and 37,075 White revisional MBS patients. A total of 219,114 primary and 21,314 revisional patients were matched. Following primary MBS, Black patients had higher rates of death (0.1% vs. 0.06%, p < 0.001), all occurrences morbidity (5.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), serious events (2.2% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), and all cause and related reoperations (1.2% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.006; 0.2% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.01), readmissions (4.6% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.001; 2.8% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), and interventions (1.4% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001; 0.8% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001) compared to White patients. In contrast, there were no significant Black-vs-White disparities in death, morbidity, serious events, reoperations, interventions, and bleeding following revisional MBS. Interestingly, Black patients had higher rates of all cause and related readmissions (7.4% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.005; 4.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.01), but lower surgical site infection rates (1.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings demonstrate a measurable contrast between racial disparities in postoperative outcomes following primary and revisional MBS. Equity-focused measures in national MBS assessments are needed to elucidate and address these disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"1952-1960"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-11564-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated Black-vs-White disparities in postoperative outcomes following primary metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). With the rising prevalence of MBS, it is important to examine racial disparities using quality indicators in primary and revisional procedures. This study explores Black-vs-White disparities in postoperative outcomes following primary and revisional MBS.

Methods: We performed an observational cohort study using the 2015-2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database of adults who underwent primary or revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, or one-anastomosis gastric bypass. Black and White patients were 1:1 matched using propensity scores across 19 covariates for primary and revisional MBS groups. McNemar's tests were used to compare 11 postoperative outcomes from the MBSAQIP semi-annual report and death, between matched cohorts.

Results: We identified 112,495 Black and 434,266 White primary MBS and 10,838 Black and 37,075 White revisional MBS patients. A total of 219,114 primary and 21,314 revisional patients were matched. Following primary MBS, Black patients had higher rates of death (0.1% vs. 0.06%, p < 0.001), all occurrences morbidity (5.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), serious events (2.2% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), and all cause and related reoperations (1.2% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.006; 0.2% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.01), readmissions (4.6% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.001; 2.8% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), and interventions (1.4% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001; 0.8% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001) compared to White patients. In contrast, there were no significant Black-vs-White disparities in death, morbidity, serious events, reoperations, interventions, and bleeding following revisional MBS. Interestingly, Black patients had higher rates of all cause and related readmissions (7.4% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.005; 4.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.01), but lower surgical site infection rates (1.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.04).

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate a measurable contrast between racial disparities in postoperative outcomes following primary and revisional MBS. Equity-focused measures in national MBS assessments are needed to elucidate and address these disparities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
黑人与白人在新陈代谢和减肥手术初诊和复诊后 30 天疗效方面的种族差异:MBSAQIP 数据库分析。
背景:先前的研究已经证明了黑人与白人在原发性代谢和减肥手术(MBS)术后结果的差异。随着MBS患病率的上升,在初级和修订程序中使用质量指标来检查种族差异是很重要的。本研究探讨了原发性和改进型MBS术后预后的黑人与白人差异。方法:我们使用2015-2020年代谢和减肥手术认证和质量改进计划(MBSAQIP)数据库进行了一项观察性队列研究,研究对象是接受了初级或改进型Roux-en-Y胃旁路手术、袖式胃切除术、十二指肠切换或单吻合式胃旁路手术的成年人。黑人和白人患者在初级和修订MBS组的19个协变量中使用倾向得分进行1:1匹配。McNemar的试验用于比较MBSAQIP半年度报告中的11个术后结果和匹配队列之间的死亡。结果:我们确定了112,495名黑人和434,266名白人原发性MBS患者,10,838名黑人和37,075名白人修正性MBS患者。共有219,114名原发患者和21,314名复诊患者被匹配。原发性MBS后,黑人患者的死亡率更高(0.1% vs. 0.06%)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,原发性和改型MBS术后结果的种族差异存在可测量的对比。需要在国家MBS评估中采取以公平为重点的措施,以阐明和解决这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
期刊最新文献
Comparative benefits of robotic gastrectomy over laparoscopic surgery across different age and BMI groups. Balloon dilation versus endoscopic stricturotomy in the treatment of Crohn's anastomotic stricture: experimental randomized study. Comparative seven year outcomes of RYGB and SADI-S as revisional procedures for weight recurrence regain after sleeve gastrectomy: weight loss trajectory, reflux control, and metabolic safety. Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastric ischemic conditioning before esophagectomy: contemporary practices and insights from an international survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1