使用 MBSAQIP 数据库对当天出院的腹腔镜 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术的围手术期结果进行分析

Warda Alam, Justin Wisely, Hassan Nasser
{"title":"使用 MBSAQIP 数据库对当天出院的腹腔镜 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术的围手术期结果进行分析","authors":"Warda Alam, Justin Wisely, Hassan Nasser","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11189-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>There has been a rising trend of outpatient bariatric surgery, particularly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcomes of same-day discharge laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) using the MBSAQIP database.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>In this retrospective study, the MBSAQIP was queried for patients undergoing non-revisional LRYGB between 2020 and 2021. Two cohorts were established: same-day discharge (SDD; length of stay = 0 days) and next-day discharge (POD1; length of stay = 1 day), with the latter serving as a control group. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were employed to compare outcomes between cohorts.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 48,408 patients underwent LRYGB, with 1,918 (4.0%) SDD and 46,490 (96.0%) POD1. The two cohorts were similar in mean age (SDD 44.2 ± 11.3 years vs POD1 44.0 ± 11.3 years; <i>p</i> = 0.61) and female sex (SDD 83.8% vs POD1 83.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.43). However, the POD1 cohort had a higher preoperative body mass index (45.4 ± 7.3 vs 44.9 ± 7.3 kg/m2; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Preoperative anticoagulation and obstructive sleep apnea were more prevalent in the POD1 group. There was no difference in overall 30-day overall complication rates (SDD 2.0% vs POD1 2.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.51), reintervention, reoperations, mortality, and emergency department visits between the two cohorts. Readmissions were lower in the SDD cohort (2.9% vs 4.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.02), whereas the need for outpatient intravenous hydration was higher in the SDD cohort (6.7% vs 3.6%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). This finding remained significant even after adjustment for confounders.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Same-day LRYGB is safe and feasible, with comparable complication rates to next-day discharge. Notably, SDD is associated with lower readmission rate and higher need for outpatient intravenous hydration, possibly reflecting rigorous bariatric protocols and thorough patient follow-up. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the selection criteria and optimize postoperative care for outpatient LRYGB.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Graphical abstract</h3>\n","PeriodicalId":501625,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perioperative outcomes of same-day discharge laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using the MBSAQIP database\",\"authors\":\"Warda Alam, Justin Wisely, Hassan Nasser\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00464-024-11189-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>There has been a rising trend of outpatient bariatric surgery, particularly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcomes of same-day discharge laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) using the MBSAQIP database.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>In this retrospective study, the MBSAQIP was queried for patients undergoing non-revisional LRYGB between 2020 and 2021. Two cohorts were established: same-day discharge (SDD; length of stay = 0 days) and next-day discharge (POD1; length of stay = 1 day), with the latter serving as a control group. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were employed to compare outcomes between cohorts.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>A total of 48,408 patients underwent LRYGB, with 1,918 (4.0%) SDD and 46,490 (96.0%) POD1. The two cohorts were similar in mean age (SDD 44.2 ± 11.3 years vs POD1 44.0 ± 11.3 years; <i>p</i> = 0.61) and female sex (SDD 83.8% vs POD1 83.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.43). However, the POD1 cohort had a higher preoperative body mass index (45.4 ± 7.3 vs 44.9 ± 7.3 kg/m2; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Preoperative anticoagulation and obstructive sleep apnea were more prevalent in the POD1 group. There was no difference in overall 30-day overall complication rates (SDD 2.0% vs POD1 2.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.51), reintervention, reoperations, mortality, and emergency department visits between the two cohorts. Readmissions were lower in the SDD cohort (2.9% vs 4.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.02), whereas the need for outpatient intravenous hydration was higher in the SDD cohort (6.7% vs 3.6%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). This finding remained significant even after adjustment for confounders.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>Same-day LRYGB is safe and feasible, with comparable complication rates to next-day discharge. Notably, SDD is associated with lower readmission rate and higher need for outpatient intravenous hydration, possibly reflecting rigorous bariatric protocols and thorough patient follow-up. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the selection criteria and optimize postoperative care for outpatient LRYGB.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Graphical abstract</h3>\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":501625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11189-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11189-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景门诊减肥手术呈上升趋势,尤其是 COVID-19 的流行加速了这一趋势。本研究旨在利用 MBSAQIP 数据库评估当日出院腹腔镜鲁-恩-Y 胃旁路术(LRYGB)的安全性和疗效。方法在这项回顾性研究中,我们查询了 MBSAQIP 在 2020 年至 2021 年期间接受非翻修 LRYGB 手术的患者。建立了两个队列:当日出院组(SDD;住院时间=0天)和次日出院组(POD1;住院时间=1天),后者作为对照组。结果共有 48,408 名患者接受了 LRYGB 术,其中 1,918 人(4.0%)接受了 SDD 术,46,490 人(96.0%)接受了 POD1 术。两组患者的平均年龄(SDD 44.2 ± 11.3 岁 vs POD1 44.0 ± 11.3 岁;P = 0.61)和女性性别(SDD 83.8% vs POD1 83.1%;P = 0.43)相似。然而,POD1 组群的术前体重指数更高(45.4 ± 7.3 vs 44.9 ± 7.3 kg/m2;p < 0.01)。POD1 组术前抗凝和阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停的发生率更高。两组患者的 30 天总体并发症发生率(SDD 2.0% vs POD1 2.3%; p = 0.51)、再介入、再手术、死亡率和急诊就诊率均无差异。SDD 组群的再入院率较低(2.9% vs 4.0%;p = 0.02),而 SDD 组群的门诊静脉补液需求较高(6.7% vs 3.6%;p <0.01)。结论当日 LRYGB 安全可行,并发症发生率与次日出院者相当。值得注意的是,SDD 与较低的再入院率和较高的门诊静脉补液需求相关,这可能反映了严格的减肥方案和对患者的全面随访。有必要进行进一步研究,以阐明门诊 LRYGB 的选择标准并优化术后护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Perioperative outcomes of same-day discharge laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using the MBSAQIP database

Background

There has been a rising trend of outpatient bariatric surgery, particularly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcomes of same-day discharge laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) using the MBSAQIP database.

Methods

In this retrospective study, the MBSAQIP was queried for patients undergoing non-revisional LRYGB between 2020 and 2021. Two cohorts were established: same-day discharge (SDD; length of stay = 0 days) and next-day discharge (POD1; length of stay = 1 day), with the latter serving as a control group. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were employed to compare outcomes between cohorts.

Results

A total of 48,408 patients underwent LRYGB, with 1,918 (4.0%) SDD and 46,490 (96.0%) POD1. The two cohorts were similar in mean age (SDD 44.2 ± 11.3 years vs POD1 44.0 ± 11.3 years; p = 0.61) and female sex (SDD 83.8% vs POD1 83.1%; p = 0.43). However, the POD1 cohort had a higher preoperative body mass index (45.4 ± 7.3 vs 44.9 ± 7.3 kg/m2; p < 0.01). Preoperative anticoagulation and obstructive sleep apnea were more prevalent in the POD1 group. There was no difference in overall 30-day overall complication rates (SDD 2.0% vs POD1 2.3%; p = 0.51), reintervention, reoperations, mortality, and emergency department visits between the two cohorts. Readmissions were lower in the SDD cohort (2.9% vs 4.0%; p = 0.02), whereas the need for outpatient intravenous hydration was higher in the SDD cohort (6.7% vs 3.6%; p < 0.01). This finding remained significant even after adjustment for confounders.

Conclusion

Same-day LRYGB is safe and feasible, with comparable complication rates to next-day discharge. Notably, SDD is associated with lower readmission rate and higher need for outpatient intravenous hydration, possibly reflecting rigorous bariatric protocols and thorough patient follow-up. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the selection criteria and optimize postoperative care for outpatient LRYGB.

Graphical abstract

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Short-term gut microbiota’s shift after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y vs one anastomosis gastric bypass: results of a multicenter randomized control trial Classifying frailty in the ventral hernia population Retrospective study on endoscopic treatment of recurrent esophageal cancer patients after radiotherapy State of the art medical devices for fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS): technical review and future developments Conquering the common bile duct: outcomes in minimally invasive transcystic common bile duct exploration versus ERCP
×
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