Global 30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Primary Bariatric Surgery Combined with Another Procedure: The BLEND Study

BackgroundNo robust data are available on the safety of primary bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) alone compared to primary BMS combined with other procedures.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to collect a 30-day mortality and morbidity of primary BMS combined with cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, or hiatal hernia repair.SettingThis is as an international, multicenter, prospective, and observational audit of patients undergoing primary BMS combined with one or more additional procedures.MethodsThe audit took place from January 1 to June 30, 2022. A descriptive analysis was conducted. A propensity score matching analysis compared the BLEND study patients with those from the GENEVA cohort to obtain objective evaluation between combined procedures and primary BMS alone.ResultsA total of 75 centers submitted data on 1036 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy was the most commonly primary BMS (N = 653, 63%), and hiatal hernia repair was the most commonly concomitant procedure (N = 447, 43.1%). RYGB accounted for the highest percentage (20.6%) of a 30-day morbidity, followed by SG (10.5%). More than one combined procedures had the highest morbidities among all combinations (17.1%). Out of overall 134 complications, 129 (96.2%) were Clavien-Dindo I-III, and 4 were CD V. Patients who underwent a primary bariatric surgery combined with another procedure had a pronounced increase in a 30-day complication rate compared with patients who underwent only BMS (12.7% vs. 7.1%).ConclusionCombining BMS with another procedure increases the risk of complications, but most are minor and require no further treatment. Combined procedures with primary BMS is a viable option to consider in selected patients following multi-disciplinary discussion

Global 30-day morbidity and mortality of surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: GRACE study

Background There is little international data on morbidity and mortality of surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). This study aimed to understand the global 30-day morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing surgery for PPU and to identify variables associated with these. Method We performed an international study of adults (≥ 18 years) who underwent surgery for PPU from 1st January 2022 to 30th June 2022. Patients who were treated conservatively or had an underlying gastric cancer were excluded. Patients were divided into subgroups according to age (≤ 50 and > 50 years) and time from onset of symptoms to hospital presentation (≤ 24 and > 24 h). Univariate and Multivariate analyses were carried out to identify factors associated with higher 30-day morbidity and mortality. Results 1874 patients from 159 centres across 52 countries were included. 78.3% (n = 1467) of the patients were males and the median (IQR) age was 49 years (25). Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were 48.5% (n = 910) and 9.3% (n = 174) respectively. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 7 (5) days. Open surgery was performed in 80% (n = 1505) of the cohort. Age > 50 years [(OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4–2), (OR = 4.7, 95% CI 3.1–7.6)], female gender [(OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.4–2.3), (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.3–2.9)], shock on admission [(OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.7–2.7), (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 3.2–7.1)], and acute kidney injury [(OR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.9–3.2), (OR = 3.9), 95% CI 2.7–5.6)] were associated with both 30-day morbidity and mortality. Delayed presentation was associated with 30-day morbidity [OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6], but not mortality. Conclusions This study showed that surgery for PPU was associated with high 30-day morbidity and mortality rate. Age, female gender, and signs of shock at presentation were associated with both 30-day morbidity and mortality

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)