Search

Objective: To examine the renoprotective effects of metabolic surgery in patients with established chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Background: The impact of metabolic surgery compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with established CKD has not been fully characterized., Methods: Patients with obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ), type 2 diabetes, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 20-60 mL/min/1.73 m² who underwent metabolic bariatric surgery at a large US health system (2010-2017) were compared with nonsurgical patients who continuously received GLP-1RA. The primary end point was CKD progression, defined as a decline of eGFR by ≥50% or to <15 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The secondary end point was the incident kidney failure (eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , dialysis, or kidney transplant) or all-cause mortality., Results: 425 patients, including 183 patients in the metabolic surgery group and 242 patients in the GLP-1RA group, with a median follow-up of 5.8 years (IQR, 4.4-7.6), were analyzed. The cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 8 years was 21.7% (95% CI: 12.2-30.6) in the surgical group and 45.1% (95% CI: 27.7 to 58.4) in the nonsurgical group, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.21 to 0.76), P =0.006. The cumulative incidence of the secondary composite end point at 8 years was 24.0% (95% CI: 14.1 to 33.2) in the surgical group and 43.8% (95% CI: 28.1 to 56.1) in the nonsurgical group, with an adjusted HR of 0.56 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.99), P =0.048., Conclusions: Among patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, and established CKD, metabolic surgery, compared with GLP-1RA, was significantly associated with a 60% lower risk of progression of kidney impairment and a 44% lower risk of kidney failure or death. Metabolic surgery should be considered as a therapeutic option for patients with CKD and obesity., Competing Interests: A.A. reported receiving grants and personal fees from Medtronic, Eli Lilly, and Ethicon. P.R.S. reported receiving grants from Medtronic and Ethicon, and personal fees from GI Dynamics, Persona, Mediflix, Metabolic Health Institute, Eli Lilly, SE Healthcare, lder, Novo Nordisk, and Heron Advisory Board. R.J.R. reported receiving personal fee from Medtronic, Diagnostic Green, mediCAD simulation GmbH, and Dendrite Imaging and serving as the interim CEO of Dendrite Imaging. S.E.N. reported receiving grants to perform clinical trials from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics Inc, Medtronic, MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. M.B.R. has a consulting relationship with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Historically, the American Board of Surgery required surgeons to pass the qualifying examination (QE) before taking the certifying examination (CE). However, in the 2020-2021 academic year, with mitigating circumstances related to COVID-19, the ABS removed this sequencing requirement to facilitate the certification process for those candidates who were negatively impacted by a QE delivery failure. This decoupling of the traditional order of exam delivery has provided a natural comparator to the traditional route and an analysis of the impact of examination sequencing on candidate performance., Methods: All candidates who applied for the canceled July 2020 QE were allowed to take the CE before passing the QE. The sample was then reduced to include only first-time candidates to ensure comparable groups for performance outcomes. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between the order of taking the QE and the CE, controlling for other examination performance, international medical graduate status, and gender., Results: Only first-time candidates who took both examinations were compared (n=947). Examination sequence was not a significant predictor of QE pass/fail outcomes, OR=0.54; 95% CI, 0.19-1.61, P =0.26. However, examination sequence was a significant predictor of CE pass/fail outcomes, OR=2.54; 95% CI, 1.46-4.68, P =0.002., Conclusions: This important study suggests that preparation for the QE increases the probability of passing the CE and provides evidence that knowledge may be foundational for clinical judgment. The ABS will consider these findings for examination sequencing moving forward., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)