Background: There has been a dramatic shift in use of bariatric procedures, but little is known about their long-term comparative effectiveness. Objective: To compare weight loss and safety among bariatric procedures. Design: Retrospective observational cohort study, January 2005 to September 2015. (ClinicalTrials.gov: ) Setting: 41 health systems in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Participants: 65 093 patients aged 20 to 79 years with body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 or greater who had bariatric procedures. Intervention: 32 208 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 29 693 sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and 3192 adjustable gastric banding (AGB) procedures. Measurements: Estimated percent total weight loss (TWL) at 1, 3, and 5 years; 30-day rates of major adverse events. Results: Total numbers of eligible patients with weight measures at 1, 3, and 5 years were 44 978 (84%), 20 783 (68%), and 7159 (69%), respectively. Thirty-day rates of major adverse events were 5.0% for RYGB, 2.6% for SG, and 2.9% for AGB. One-year mean TWLs were 31.2% (95% CI, 31.1% to 31.3%) for RYGB, 25.2% (CI, 25.1% to 25.4%) for SG, and 13.7% (CI, 13.3% to 14.0%) for AGB. At 1 year, RYGB patients lost 5.9 (CI, 5.8 to 6.1) percentage points more weight than SG patients and 17.7 (CI, 17.3 to 18.1) percentage points more than AGB patients, and SG patients lost 12.0 (CI, 11.6 to 12.5) percentage points more than AGB patients. Five-year mean TWLs were 25.5% (CI,25.1% to 25.9%) for RYGB, 18.8% (CI, 18.0% to 19.6%) for SG, and 11.7% (CI, 10.2% to 13.1%) for AGB. Patients with diabetes, those with BMI less than 50 kg/m2, those aged 65 years or older, African American patients, and Hispanic patients lost less weight than patients without those characteristics. Limitation: Potential unobserved confounding due to nonrandomized design; electronic health record databases had missing outcome data. Conclusion: Adults lost more weight with RYGB than with SG or AGB at 1, 3, and 5 years; however, RYGB had the highest 30-day rate of major adverse events. Small subgroup differences in weight loss outcomes were observed. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

; for the PCORnet Bariatric Study Collaborative IMPORTANCE Additional data comparing longer-term problems associated with various bariatric surgical procedures are needed for shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE To compare the risks of intervention, operation, endoscopy, hospitalization, and mortality up to 5 years after 2 bariatric surgical procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Adults who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2015, within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Data from 33 560 adults at 10 centers within 4 clinical data research networks were included in this cohort study. Information was extracted from electronic health records using a common data model and linked to insurance claims and mortality indices. Analyses were conducted from January 2018 through October 2019. EXPOSURES Bariatric surgical procedures. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was time until operation or intervention. Secondary outcomes included endoscopy, hospitalization, and mortality rates. RESULTS Of 33 560 adults, 18 056 (54%) underwent RYGB, and 15 504 (46%) underwent SG. The median (interquartile range) follow-up for operation or intervention was 3.4 (1.6-5.0) years for RYGB and 2.2 (0.9-3.6) years for SG. The overall mean (SD) patient age was 45.0 (11.5) years, and the overall mean (SD) patient body mass index was 49.1 (7.9). The cohort was composed predominantly of women (80%) and white individuals (66%), with 26% of Hispanic ethnicity. Operation or intervention was less likely for SG than for RYGB (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79; P < .001). The estimated, adjusted cumulative incidence rates of operation or intervention at 5 years were 8.94% (95% CI, 8.23%-9.65%) for SG and 12.27% (95% CI, 11.49%-13.05%) for RYGB. Hospitalization was less likely for SG than for RYGB (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.87; P < .001), and the 5-year adjusted cumulative incidence rates were 32.79% (95% CI, 31.62%-33.94%) for SG and 38.33% (95% CI, 37.17%-39.46%) for RYGB. Endoscopy was less likely for SG than for RYGB (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.43-0.52; P < .001), and the adjusted cumulative incidence rates at 5 years were 7.80% (95% CI, 7.15%-8.43%) for SG and 15.83% (95% CI, 14.94%-16.71%) for RYGB. There were no differences in all-cause mortality between SG and RYGB. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Interventions, operations, and hospitalizations were relatively common after bariatric surgical procedures and were more often associated with RYGB than SG.

ProblemEngaging communities in research increases its relevance and may speed the translation of discoveries into improved health outcomes. Many researchers lack training to effectively engage stakeholders, whereas academic institutions lack infrastructure to support community engagement.ApproachIn 2009, the Meharry-Vanderbilt Community-Engaged Research Core began testing new approaches for community engagement, which led to the development of the Community Engagement Studio (CE Studio). This structured program facilitates project-specific input from community and patient stakeholders to enhance research design, implementation, and dissemination. Developers used a team approach to recruit and train stakeholders, prepare researchers to engage with stakeholders, and facilitate an in-person meeting with both.OutcomesThe research core has implemented 28 CE Studios that engaged 152 community stakeholders. Participating researchers, representing a broad range of faculty ranks and disciplines, reported that input from stakeholders was valuable and that the CE Studio helped determine project feasibility and enhanced research design and implementation. Stakeholders found the CE Studio to be an acceptable method of engagement and reported a better understanding of research in general. A tool kit was developed to replicate this model and to disseminate this approach.Next StepsThe research core will collect data to better understand the impact of CE Studios on research proposal submissions, funding, research outcomes, patient and stakeholder engagement in projects, and dissemination of results. They will also collect data to determine whether CE Studios increase patient-centered approaches in research and whether stakeholders who participate have more trust and willingness to participate in research.