METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing postoperative comorbid disease resolution such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, joint and musculoskeletal conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and menstrual irregularities following LVSG and LRYGB were included for analysis. The studies were selected from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database and reported on at least one comorbidity resolution or improvement. The present work was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Jadad method for assessment of methodological quality was applied to the included studies.
RESULTS: Six RCTs performed between 2005 and 2015 involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on the resolution or improvement of comorbid disease following LVSG and LRYGB procedures. Both bariatric procedures provide effective and almost comparable results in improving or resolving these comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative nondiabetic comorbid diseases in obese patients. While results are not conclusive at this time, LRYGB may provide superior results compared to LVSG in mediating the remission and/or improvement in some conditions such as dyslipidemia and arthritis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.
METHODS: RCTs comparing the early complication rates following LVSG and LRYGB between 2000 and 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included 30-day mortality, major and minor complications and interventions required for their management, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, operating time, and conversions from laparoscopic to open procedures.
RESULTS: Six RCTs involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on early major complications. A statistically significant reduction in relative odds of early major complications favoring the LVSG procedure was noted (p = 0.05). Five RCTs representing 633 patients (LVSG n = 317, LRYGB n = 316) reported early minor complications. A non-statically significant reduction in relative odds of 29 % favoring the LVSG procedure was observed for early minor complications (p = 0.4). However, other outcomes directly related to complications which included reoperation rates, readmission rate, and 30-day mortality rate showed comparable effect size for both surgical procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs suggests that fewer early major and minor complications are associated with LVSG compared with LRYGB procedure. However, this does not translate into higher readmission rate, reoperation rate, or 30-day mortality for either procedure.
METHODS: The Asia-Pacific and Middle East Working Group on Nutrition in the ICU has identified major areas of uncertainty in clinical practice for healthcare professionals providing nutrition therapy in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East and developed a series of consensus statements to guide nutrition therapy in the ICU in these regions.
RESULTS: Accordingly, consensus statements have been provided on nutrition risk assessment and parenteral and enteral feeding strategies in the ICU, monitoring adequacy of, and tolerance to, nutrition in the ICU and institutional processes for nutrition therapy in the ICU. Furthermore, the Working Group has noted areas requiring additional research, including the most appropriate use of hypocaloric feeding in the ICU.
CONCLUSIONS: The objective of the Working Group in formulating these statements is to guide healthcare professionals in practicing appropriate clinical nutrition in the ICU, with a focus on improving quality of care, which will translate into improved patient outcomes.
METHODS: Period of observation: March 1st, 2020 March 1st, 2021.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: patients included in the database since 2015 and still receiving HPN on March 1st, 2020 as well as new patients included in the database during the period of observation. Data related to the previous 12 months and recorded on March 1st 2021: 1) occurrence of COVID-19 infection since the beginning of the pandemic (yes, no, unknown); 2) infection severity (asymptomatic; mild, no-hospitalization; moderate, hospitalization no-ICU; severe, hospitalization in ICU); 3) vaccinated against COVID-19 (yes, no, unknown); 4) patient outcome on March 1st 2021: still on HPN, weaned off HPN, deceased, lost to follow up.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight centres from 23 countries included 4680 patients. Data on COVID-19 were available for 55.1% of patients. The cumulative incidence of infection was 9.6% in the total group and ranged from 0% to 21.9% in the cohorts of individual countries. Infection severity was reported as: asymptomatic 26.7%, mild 32.0%, moderate 36.0%, severe 5.3%. Vaccination status was unknown in 62.0% of patients, non-vaccinated 25.2%, vaccinated 12.8%. Patient outcome was reported as: still on HPN 78.6%, weaned off HPN 10.6%, deceased 9.7%, lost to follow up 1.1%. A higher incidence of infection (p = 0.04), greater severity of infection (p