Why the study?
Bariatric procedures are an expanding treatment option for obesity, but short- and long-term safety outcomes across different procedures needed direct comparison.
Does sleeve gastrectomy or adjustable gastric banding compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass improve short- and long-term safety outcomes in adults undergoing bariatric surgery?
Does sleeve gastrectomy or adjustable gastric banding compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass improve short- and long-term safety outcomes in adults undergoing bariatric surgery?
In adults undergoing bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding were associated with lower risks of short-term adverse events and long-term mortality compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, though RYGB had the lowest risk for revision.
Higher RYGB risks observed versus AGB/SG; observational data leave open causal effects on procedure selection.
PURPOSE: Obesity is a highly prevalent condition with severe clinical burden. Bariatric procedures are an important and expanding treatment option. This study compared short-(30-day composite adverse events) and long-term (intervention/operation, endoscopy, hospitalization, and mortality up to 5 years) safety outcomes associated with three bariatric surgical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational cohort study replicated an electronic health record study comparing short- and long-term problems associated with three bariatric surgical procedures between January 1, 2006, and September 30, 2015, within a Health Plan Research Network. RESULTS: Of 95,251 adults, 34,240 (36%) underwent adjustable gastric banding (AGB), 36,206 (38%) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and 24,805 (26%) sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Median (interquartile range) years of follow-up was 3.3 (1.4-5.0) (AGB), 2.5 (1.0-4.6) (RYGB), and 1.1 (0.5-2.1) (SG). Overall mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.4) years. The cohort was predominantly female (76%). Thirty-day composite adverse events occurred more frequently following RYGB (3.8%) than AGB (3.1%) and SG (2.8%). Operation/intervention was less likely in SG than in RYGB (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 0.87; 95%CI, 0.80-0.96; P=0.003), and more likely in AGB than in RYGB (AHR, 2.10; 95%CI, 2.00-2.21; P<0.001). Hospitalization was less likely after ABG and SG than after RYGB: AGB vs. RYGB, AHR=0.73; 95%CI, 0.71-0.76; P<0.001; SG vs. RYGB, AHR=0.79; 95%CI, 0.76-0.83; P<0.001. Mortality was most likely for RYGB (SG vs. RYGB: AHR, 0.76; 95%CI, 0.64-0.92; P=0.004; AGB vs. RYGB: AHR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.43-0.56; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions, operations, and hospitalizations were more often associated with AGB and RYGB than SG while RYGB had the lowest risk for revision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: