Obesity Surgery

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 638–649 | Cite as

The Application of Comorbidity Indices to Predict Early Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Nationwide Comparative Analysis of Over 70,000 Cases

  • Jin Hee Shin
  • Mathias Worni
  • Anthony W. Castleberry
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
  • Philip A. Omotosho
  • Mina Silberberg
  • Truls Østbye
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) often have substantial comorbidities, which must be taken into account to appropriately assess expected postoperative outcomes. The Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser indices are widely used comorbidity measures, both of which also have revised algorithms based on enhanced ICD-9-CM coding. It is currently unclear which of the existing comorbidity measures best predicts early postoperative outcomes following LRYGB.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, patients 18 years or older undergoing LRYGB for obesity between 2001 and 2008 were identified. Comorbidities were assessed according to the original and enhanced Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser indices. Using multivariate logistic regression, the following early postoperative outcomes were assessed: overall postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery. Model performance for the four comorbidity indices was assessed and compared using C-statistics and the Akaike’s information criterion (AIC).

Results

A total of 70,287 patients were included. Mean age was 43.1 years (SD, 10.8), 81.6 % were female and 60.3 % were White. Both the original and enhanced Elixhauser indices modestly outperformed the Charlson/Deyo in predicting the surgical outcomes. All four models had similar C-statistics, but the original Elixhauser index was associated with the smallest AIC for all of the surgical outcomes.

Conclusions

The original Elixhauser index is the best predictor of early postoperative outcomes in our cohort of patients undergoing LRYGB. However, differences between the Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser indices are modest, and each of these indices provides clinically relevant insight for predicting early postoperative outcomes in this high-risk patient population.

Keywords

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass Comorbidity Charlson/Deyo index Elixhauser index Postoperative outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, et al. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2008. JAMA. 2010;303:235–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher BL, Schauer P. Medical and surgical options in the treatment of severe obesity. Am J Surg. 2002;184:9S–16S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McTigue KM, Harris R, Hemphill B, et al. Screening and interventions for obesity in adults: summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:933–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sjostrom L, Narbro K, Sjostrom CD, et al. Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:741–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:1724–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flum DR, Dellinger EP. Impact of gastric bypass operation on survival: a population-based analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199:543–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nguyen NT, Masoomi H, Magno CP, et al. Trends in use of bariatric surgery, 2003–2008. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213:261–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Santry HP, Gillen DL, Lauderdale DS. Trends in bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA. 2005;294:1909–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeMaria EJ, Portenier D, Wolfe L. Obesity surgery mortality risk score: proposal for a clinically useful score to predict mortality risk in patients undergoing gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3:134–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta PK, Franck C, Miller WJ, et al. Development and validation of a bariatric surgery morbidity risk calculator using the prospective, multicenter NSQIP dataset. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:301–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner PL, Saager L, Dalton J, et al. A nomogram for predicting surgical complications in bariatric surgery patients. Obes Surg. 2011;21:655–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finks JF, Kole KL, Yenumula PR, et al. Predicting risk for serious complications with bariatric surgery: results from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative. Ann Surg. 2011;254:633–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sjostrom LV. Morbidity of severely obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55:508S–15S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flum DR, Belle SH, King WC, et al. Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:445–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ballantyne GH, Svahn J, Capella RF, et al. Predictors of prolonged hospital stay following open and laparoscopic gastric bypass for morbid obesity: body mass index, length of surgery, sleep apnea, asthma, and the metabolic syndrome. Obes Surg. 2004;14:1042–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Collazo-Clavell ML, Clark MM, McAlpine DE, et al. Assessment and preparation of patients for bariatric surgery. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81:S11–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tang J, Wan JY, Bailey JE. Performance of comorbidity measures to predict stroke and death in a community-dwelling, hypertensive Medicaid population. Stroke. 2008;39:1938–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lieffers JR, Baracos VE, Winget M, et al. A comparison of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity measures to predict colorectal cancer survival using administrative health data. Cancer. 2011;117:1957–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36:8–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Southern DA, Quan H, Ghali WA. Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. Med Care. 2004;42:355–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stukenborg GJ, Wagner DP, Connors Jr AF. Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without information from prior hospitalizations. Med Care. 2001;39:727–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quan H, Li B, Saunders LD, et al. Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database. Health Serv Res. 2008;43:1424–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1130–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Overview of the Nationwide Inpatients Sample(NIS). 2009. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed 22 Feb 2010.
  27. 27.
    Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Overview of the Nationwide Inpatients Sample (NIS). http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed February 2010.
  28. 28.
    Whalen D, Houchens R, Elixhauser A. 2004 HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) comparison report. HCUP Method Series Report No. 2007-03. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) web site. 2006. http://www.hcup-us.ahrg.gov/reports/methods/methods.jsp. Accessed February 2010.
  29. 29.
    Birkmeyer NJ, Dimick JB, Share D, et al. Hospital complication rates with bariatric surgery in Michigan. JAMA. 2010;304:435–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sokol DK, Wilson J. What is a surgical complication? World J Surg. 2008;32:942–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg. 2004;239:43–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ricciardi R, Town RJ, Kellogg TA, et al. Outcomes after open versus laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2006;16:317–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weller WE, Rosati C. Comparing outcomes of laparoscopic versus open bariatric surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:10–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Worni M, Guller U, Shah A, et al. Cholecystectomy concomitant with laparoscopic gastric bypass: a trend analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample from 2001 to 2008. Obes Surg. 2012;22:220–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Myers RP, Quan H, Hubbard JN, et al. Predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with cirrhosis: results differ across risk adjustment methods. Hepatology. 2009;49:568–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thombs BD, Singh VA, Halonen J, et al. The effects of preexisting medical comorbidities on mortality and length of hospital stay in acute burn injury: evidence from a national sample of 31,338 adult patients. Ann Surg. 2007;245:629–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autum Control. 1974;19:716–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148:839–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Erdreich LS, Lee ET. Use of relative operating characteristic analysis in epidemiology. A method for dealing with subjective judgement. Am J Epidemiol. 1981;114:649–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grendar J, Shaheen AA, Myers RP, et al. Predicting in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery: determining the optimal risk adjustment method. Arch Surg. 2012;147:126–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ali MR, Maguire MB, Wolfe BM. Assessment of obesity-related comorbidities: a novel scheme for evaluating bariatric surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202:70–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Szomstein S, Avital S, Brasesco O, et al. Laparoscopic gastric bypass in patients on thyroid replacement therapy for subnormal thyroid function—prevalence and short-term outcome. Obes Surg. 2004;14:95–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cunningham JL, Merrell CC, Sarr M, et al. Investigation of antidepressant medication usage after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2012;22:530–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fernandez Jr AZ, Demaria EJ, Tichansky DS, et al. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for death following gastric bypass for treatment of morbid obesity. Ann Surg. 2004;239:698–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Perugini RA, Mason R, Czerniach DR, et al. Predictors of complication and suboptimal weight loss after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a series of 188 patients. Arch Surg. 2003;138:541–5. discussion 545–546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang W, Mason EE, Renquist KE, et al. Factors influencing survival following surgical treatment of obesity. Obes Surg. 2005;15:43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wallace AE, Young-Xu Y, Hartley D, et al. Racial, socioeconomic, and rural–urban disparities in obesity-related bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2010;20:1354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kohn GP, Galanko JA, Overby DW, et al. High case volumes and surgical fellowships are associated with improved outcomes for bariatric surgery patients: a justification of current credentialing initiatives for practice and training. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:909–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Carbonell AM, Lincourt AE, Matthews BD, et al. National study of the effect of patient and hospital characteristics on bariatric surgery outcomes. Am Surg. 2005;71:308–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Poulose BK, Griffin MR, Zhu Y, et al. National analysis of adverse patient safety for events in bariatric surgery. Am Surg. 2005;71:406–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Poulose BK, Griffin MR, Moore DE, et al. Risk factors for post-operative mortality in bariatric surgery. J Surg Res. 2005;127:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Livingston EH, Langert J. The impact of age and Medicare status on bariatric surgical outcomes. Arch Surg. 2006;141:1115–20. discussion 1121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jin Hee Shin
    • 1
  • Mathias Worni
    • 2
    • 4
  • Anthony W. Castleberry
    • 3
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
    • 2
  • Philip A. Omotosho
    • 3
  • Mina Silberberg
    • 1
  • Truls Østbye
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Community and Family MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Research on Research Group, Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, InselspitalUniversity of BerneBerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations