Roux en Y 胃旁路术与袖状胃切除术后发生心血管事件的风险:基于索赔的回顾性队列研究。

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Annals of surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006507
Kristina H Lewis, Stephanie Argetsinger, Robert F LeCates, Fang Zhang, David E Arterburn, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Adolfo Fernandez, James F Wharam
{"title":"Roux en Y 胃旁路术与袖状胃切除术后发生心血管事件的风险:基于索赔的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Kristina H Lewis, Stephanie Argetsinger, Robert F LeCates, Fang Zhang, David E Arterburn, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Adolfo Fernandez, James F Wharam","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) events following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux en Y gastric bypass (RYGB).</p><p><strong>Summary background data: </strong>Bariatric surgery is associated with reduced CVD risk but the differential effect of contemporary bariatric procedures is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used insurance claims to conduct a retrospective cohort study of CVD outcomes for patients who underwent RYGB versus SG between 2010 and 2021. Patients were followed for up to 5 years for a primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome as well as individual outcomes including myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and arrhythmia. We compared cumulative risks of CVD events using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling, in overall cohorts and in sub-cohorts of older adults and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) or pre-existing CVD and elevated morbidity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Matched, weighted cohorts of 13,545 SG and RYGB patients were observed for an average of 2.5 years after surgery, with 26.2% not lost to follow-up by the end of 5 years. There was no difference in MACE risk between procedures (aHR 1.01 for RYGB vs. SG [95% CI 0.90, 1.12]) in the overall cohort or among the subgroup of older adults (aHR 0.97 for RYGB vs. SG [95% CI 0.85, 1.10]). Patients with T2D experienced lower risk of MACE following RYGB compared to SG (aHR 0.78 [95% CI 0.66, 0.92]), as did those with pre-existing CVD or elevated morbidity prior to surgery (aHR 0.81 [95% CI 0.70, 0.93]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings further support the preferential use of RYGB over SG for patients with T2D or who have pre-existing CVD. However, among other groups of patients, including older adults, we did not observe a relative benefit of RYGB during the time horizon in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Events Following Roux en Y Gastric Bypass versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Claims-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Kristina H Lewis, Stephanie Argetsinger, Robert F LeCates, Fang Zhang, David E Arterburn, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Adolfo Fernandez, James F Wharam\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006507\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) events following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux en Y gastric bypass (RYGB).</p><p><strong>Summary background data: </strong>Bariatric surgery is associated with reduced CVD risk but the differential effect of contemporary bariatric procedures is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used insurance claims to conduct a retrospective cohort study of CVD outcomes for patients who underwent RYGB versus SG between 2010 and 2021. Patients were followed for up to 5 years for a primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome as well as individual outcomes including myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and arrhythmia. We compared cumulative risks of CVD events using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling, in overall cohorts and in sub-cohorts of older adults and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) or pre-existing CVD and elevated morbidity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Matched, weighted cohorts of 13,545 SG and RYGB patients were observed for an average of 2.5 years after surgery, with 26.2% not lost to follow-up by the end of 5 years. There was no difference in MACE risk between procedures (aHR 1.01 for RYGB vs. SG [95% CI 0.90, 1.12]) in the overall cohort or among the subgroup of older adults (aHR 0.97 for RYGB vs. SG [95% CI 0.85, 1.10]). Patients with T2D experienced lower risk of MACE following RYGB compared to SG (aHR 0.78 [95% CI 0.66, 0.92]), as did those with pre-existing CVD or elevated morbidity prior to surgery (aHR 0.81 [95% CI 0.70, 0.93]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings further support the preferential use of RYGB over SG for patients with T2D or who have pre-existing CVD. However, among other groups of patients, including older adults, we did not observe a relative benefit of RYGB during the time horizon in this study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006507\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006507","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较袖带胃切除术(SG)和Roux en Y胃旁路术(RYGB)后发生心血管疾病(CVD)的风险:减肥手术可降低心血管疾病风险,但当代减肥手术的不同效果尚不清楚:我们利用保险索赔对 2010 年至 2021 年间接受 RYGB 和 SG 的患者的心血管疾病结果进行了回顾性队列研究。我们对患者进行了长达 5 年的随访,以了解主要复合重大心血管不良事件 (MACE) 结果以及心肌梗死、中风、心力衰竭和心律失常等个别结果。我们使用多变量 Cox 比例危险模型比较了总体队列和老年人子队列、2 型糖尿病(T2D)患者或原有心血管疾病和发病率升高者的心血管疾病事件累积风险:对13545名SG和RYGB患者的匹配加权队列进行了术后平均2.5年的观察,其中26.2%的患者在5年后未失去随访。无论是在总体队列中还是在老年人亚组中,不同手术的 MACE 风险均无差异(RYGB 与 SG 相比的 aHR 为 1.01 [95% CI 0.90, 1.12])(RYGB 与 SG 相比的 aHR 为 0.97 [95% CI 0.85, 1.10])。与 SG 相比,T2D 患者在 RYGB 术后发生 MACE 的风险较低(aHR 0.78 [95% CI 0.66, 0.92]),术前已有心血管疾病或发病率较高的患者也是如此(aHR 0.81 [95% CI 0.70, 0.93]):这些发现进一步支持了对患有 T2D 或原有心血管疾病的患者优先使用 RYGB 而非 SG。然而,在包括老年人在内的其他患者群体中,我们在本研究的时间跨度内未观察到 RYGB 的相对获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Events Following Roux en Y Gastric Bypass versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Claims-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To compare the risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) events following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux en Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Summary background data: Bariatric surgery is associated with reduced CVD risk but the differential effect of contemporary bariatric procedures is unclear.

Methods: We used insurance claims to conduct a retrospective cohort study of CVD outcomes for patients who underwent RYGB versus SG between 2010 and 2021. Patients were followed for up to 5 years for a primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome as well as individual outcomes including myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and arrhythmia. We compared cumulative risks of CVD events using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling, in overall cohorts and in sub-cohorts of older adults and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) or pre-existing CVD and elevated morbidity.

Results: Matched, weighted cohorts of 13,545 SG and RYGB patients were observed for an average of 2.5 years after surgery, with 26.2% not lost to follow-up by the end of 5 years. There was no difference in MACE risk between procedures (aHR 1.01 for RYGB vs. SG [95% CI 0.90, 1.12]) in the overall cohort or among the subgroup of older adults (aHR 0.97 for RYGB vs. SG [95% CI 0.85, 1.10]). Patients with T2D experienced lower risk of MACE following RYGB compared to SG (aHR 0.78 [95% CI 0.66, 0.92]), as did those with pre-existing CVD or elevated morbidity prior to surgery (aHR 0.81 [95% CI 0.70, 0.93]).

Conclusions: These findings further support the preferential use of RYGB over SG for patients with T2D or who have pre-existing CVD. However, among other groups of patients, including older adults, we did not observe a relative benefit of RYGB during the time horizon in this study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
期刊最新文献
The Association Between Pediatric Readiness and Mortality for Injured Children Treated at US Trauma Centers. The Role of Adjuvant Therapy in Duodenal Adenocarcinoma and Intestinal Subtype Ampullary Carcinoma After Curative Resection. Association of Prophylactic Antibiotics With Early Infectious Complications in Children With Cancer Undergoing Central Venous Access Device Placement. Cure Probabilities After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of 2554 Patients. Pancreatic Cancer: An Exocrine Tumor With Endocrine Characteristics.
×
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:481959085
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