Abstract
Background
In the last decades, we have experienced an increase in the prevalence of obesity in western countries with a higher demand for bariatric surgery and consequently prolonged waiting times. Currently, in many public hospitals, the only criterion that establishes priority for bariatric surgery is waiting time regardless of obesity severity.
Methods
We propose a new, simple, and homogeneous clinical prioritization system, the Obesity Surgery Score (OSS), which takes into account simultaneously and equitably the time on surgical waiting list and the obesity severity based on three variables: body mass index, obesity-related comorbidities, and functional limitations. We have reviewed the current literature related to obesity clinical staging systems, and we have carried out an analysis of our patients in waiting list and divided their characteristics according to their degree of severity (A, B, or C) in the OSS. Patients with OSS grade C have a higher mean BMI, greater severity in comorbidities, and greater socio-labor impact. The current surgery waiting time of our series is of 26 months. Currently, 27 patients (51.9%) with OSS grade B and 15 patients (51.7%) with OSS grade C have been on our waiting list for more than 1 year.
Conclusion
Since the obesity severity, the waiting time and its clinical consequences are associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality, it is important to apply a structured prioritization system for bariatric surgery waiting list. This allows prioritization of patients at greater risk, improves patient prognosis, and optimizes costs and available health resources.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The increase in obesity prevalence in western countries, with their associated comorbidities [1, 2], generates a greater demand of bariatric surgery. In 1991, the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) established as candidates for bariatric surgery patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m2 or between 35 and 40 kg/m2 and comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) [3], hypertension (HT) [4], dyslipidemia (DLP), or obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). At present, we are witnessing the rise of so-called “metabolic surgery” in patients with DM and BMI between 32 and 35 kg/m2 (in some groups even with lower BMI), especially in patients with difficult medical management or associated to comorbidities [5]. For this reason, the volume of patients that could benefit of bariatric surgery could increase considerably, with a consequent increase in health costs and waiting times (WT) [6].
In the clinical evolution of excess weight, concomitant comorbid conditions can appear, increasing the overall cardiovascular risk [7,8,9,10,11]. Despite of this, in the Spanish National Health System, morbid obesity is included in the group of procedures with a priority score 3 (the pathology allows delayed treatment since it does not produce significant sequelae) [12]. In many hospitals, the only criterion that prioritizes surgery is the WT, without taking into account the obesity severity. This fact could have negative consequences and serious sequelae in patients at greater risk while waiting for surgery. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a prioritization system in morbid obese patients with a higher degree of severity, in order to reduce morbimortality as a result of protracted WT.
Methodology
The criteria that should be used to establish a waiting list prioritization system should be the following:
-
Be simple and quick to apply by clinicians
-
Provide relevant information about the patient based on established criteria
-
Be reevaluated according to the evolution of comorbidities
Taking into account these three characteristics, we have developed the Obesity Surgery Score (OSS), which allows to classify candidates for bariatric surgery according to their degree of severity, to establish a prioritization order within a surgical waiting list. The OSS consists of three main variables: BMI, obesity-related comorbidity, and socio-labor impact (Table 1). We excluded sex and age as they are controversial variables in multiple studies.
-
A)
BMI. BMI, although with many limitations, is the current anthropometric classification tool of obesity proposed by the main scientific societies such as Spanish Society for the Study of Obesity (SEEDO), Spanish Society for Obesity Surgery (SECO), American Society of Bariatric Surgery (ASBS), and World Health Organization (WHO), and it is the main selection parameter for bariatric surgery. Overall, the higher the BMI, the greater the obesity-related diseases, cardiovascular risk, and mortality [7,8,9,10,11], and therefore, a higher OSS reached. We classify BMI (kg/m2) in four groups (score 0–3), taking into account the current indications of bariatric surgery:
-
BMI < 40: 0 point
-
BMI 40–49.9: 1 point
-
BMI 50–59.9: 2 points
-
BMI ≥ 60: 3 points
-
B)
Obesity-related comorbidity. The severity of obesity-related comorbidities, with poor metabolic control, multi-pharmacological treatments, established organic damage, etc., leads to greater morbimortality and surgery has demonstrated significant benefits. We established four groups (score 0–3):
-
No obesity-related risk factors: 0 point
-
Mild comorbidity (subclinical metabolic changes): 1 point
-
Moderate comorbidity (established chronic disease): 2 points
-
Severe comorbidity (severe-limiting pathology or established organ damage): 3 points
-
C)
Socio-labor impact. Severe obesity is associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). Excess of weight may have a negative impact on the psychological and social functioning of patients, and therefore, the socio-labor impact should also be considered as a criterion for surgery prioritization. The management of obese patients must be multidisciplinary and in our obesity surgery protocol, the assessment by the psychiatrist is mandatory, who is responsible to determine the socio-labor repercussion based on three aspects: psycho-affective, relationship with socio-family environment, and daily life activities. Short Form (SF)-12, Euroqol (EQ)-5D, and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life (IWQOL)-Lite are validated tools to determine the HRQL, which may help the physician calculate the degree of socio-labor impact of obese patients in mild, moderate, or severe [13]. We classify the socio-labor impact into three groups (score 0–2):
-
Mild socio-labor impact (0 point). Situation close to normal, with a slight change that correspond to limitations of obesity (low self-esteem, slight decrease in functional capacity).
-
Moderate socio-labor impact (1 point). Psychopathological symptoms (anxiety-depressive disorder without medical treatment), poor social relations, and moderate limitation of normal daily life activities.
-
Severe socio-labor impact (2 points). Major psychopathological symptoms (anxiety-depressive disorder requiring medication), social isolation, severe problems in the family or couple, dependent for most daily life activities, and loss of employment or sick leave.
The total score will classify patients into three groups according to their degree of severity:
-
Grade A: 0–2 points. Lower degree of severity
-
Grade B: 3–5 points. Moderate degree of severity
-
Grade C: 6–8 points. Higher degree of severity
The score within each OSS category is not cumulative and the highest score is selected. The result is expressed with the degree (A/B/C) and in brackets the corresponding score. E.g., A(2) implies a grade A and a total score of 2 points in the OSS. It is of special utility to calculate the OSS at the time of inclusion in the surgical waiting list in order to know, in a quick and intuitive way, the profile of obesity severity. This scale is dynamic and may suffer variations during WT.
Many countries with public health system have prolonged WT. The calculated average waiting time for bariatric surgey in Canada is just over 5 years [14, 15]. We define WT as the time of entry in surgical waiting list, once preoperative evaluation is completed. We not only take into account the obesity severity, but also the WT. We propose an easy-to-apply formula, the OSSWT (Obesity Surgery Score adjusted by Waiting Time), which allows to discriminate patients with higher priority according to their OSS and WT (Table 2).
E.g., OSSWT formula, in a hospital with a 36-month WT for bariatric surgery, patient 1 has an OSS of B(3) and has been waiting for 25 months, and patient 2 has an OSS of C(6) and has been waiting for 11 months.
Patient 1
Patient 2
When adjusting the OSS by WT, patient 2 is prioritized taking into account these two variables.
We have carried out a retrospective analysis of our patients in waiting list (Table 3). Patients with OSS grade C have a higher mean BMI, greater severity in comorbidities, and greater socio-labor impact. However, with the current criteria, these patients are not prioritized for the degree of severity. The current surgery WT of our series is 26 months. Currently, 27 patients (51.9%) with OSS grade B and 15 patients (51.7%) with grade C have been on our waiting list for more than 1 year.
Discussion
According to a SEEDO Consensus Document, 38% of the adult population are overweight (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2) and 14.5% obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2), 13.4% of men and 15.7% of women [16]. Morbid obesity and especially associated diseases decrease life expectancy and increase rate of sudden and global death of obese patients compared to subjects with normal weight of the same age [17]. Prolonged WT increases patients’ risk of suffering health impairments over time. Moreover, most wait-listed patients refer physical, mental, and economic deterioration during the WT [13].
There are scales that determine prognosis and prioritization of patients in surgical waiting list for other pathologies, such as liver transplants, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) in adults or Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease (PELD) in children [18]; prioritization scales for knee and hip prostheses; elective cataract surgery [19, 20]. Currently in many countries with public health systems, the only criteria that establishes priority for bariatric surgery is WT regardless of the obesity severity. This is a serious problem in hospitals with protracted WT. Other scales such as the POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity) which estimates morbimortality in surgical patients, cannot be used for prioritization since the second part of this formula, the surgical aspect, has not been performed when using the scale. Moreover, it is difficult to apply in a functional (non-obligatory) surgery such as bariatric surgery [21].
In a retrospective review of Dalhousie University (Halifax, Canada), 1399 patients were analyzed in bariatric surgery waiting list, with 22 deaths (1.57%) occurred during WT. The mean age of this group of patients was 62.7 years, mean BMI 51.5 kg/m2, and mean time from inclusion to death 21.6 months. The average of comorbidities per patient was 6.9. The most frequent cause of death was cancer (23%), cardiological pathologies (18%), and infectious (14%). The authors conclude by emphasizing the need to develop judicious strategies that allow a better triage and prioritization of this vulnerable population in centers with prolonged WT [22].
In a recent survey in 52 Spanish hospitals, 4724 patients were reported to be in bariatric surgery waiting list. According to this survey, 68% of the patients were more than 6 months in WT, with a mean delay per patient of 397 days and a maximum delay of 1661 days. The WT was the only criteria for prioritization used in 50% of the centers. Different prioritization protocols were available only in 26 of the 52 hospitals surveyed, where the patient’s clinical condition was more important than the date of entry in waiting list (ref. Results SECO survey, Sevilla 2017).
In this way, Alastrué et al. performed a review on bariatric surgery prioritization risk scales [23]. The most applicable scale was proposed by Kral JG, the Kral’s Obesity Severity Index (ISO), adjusted by BMI (Table 4) [24]. However, in this scale, it is necessary to adjust the BMI score for an obesity surgery prioritization system and likewise, it does not take into account the WT, which could delay surgical intervention in patients at low risk.
Although BMI has limitations and there are other more accurate methods that determine body fat (circumference waist or waist-hip ratio, radiological techniques such as Dual Densitometry), we consider that BMI, besides being related to mortality, is the current and main parameter for indications in bariatric surgery, and it should be taken into consideration in any prioritization system.
Each BMI increase of 5 kg/m2 above the optimum of 22.5–25 Kg/m2 is associated with a 30% increase in overall mortality (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27–1.32) [8, 9]. A meta-analysis of the Global BMI Mortality Collaboration showed that overweight and obesity are associated with increased all-cause mortality on four continents. The HR for each 5 kg/m2 units above a BMI 25 kg/m2 was 1.39 (95% CI 1.34–1.43) in Europe, 1.29 (95% CI 1.26–1.32) in North America, 1.39 (95% CI 1.34–1.44) in East Asia, and 1.31 (95% CI 1.27–1.35) in Australia and New Zealand. This finding supports strategies to combat obesity in different populations [7].
With respect to obesity-related comorbidity, a study of the University of Alberta, Royal Alexandra Hospital (Edmonton, Alta, Canada) in 99 patients glimpses the importance of prioritizing obese patients in bariatric surgery, concluding that most patients should be prioritized based on clinical severity and functional impairment rather than the traditional approach to following the order of inclusion in waiting list [25].
Likewise, different medical classification systems have been developed to predict morbimortality in cohorts of overweight/obese patients. We have reviewed the current literature in the last 10 years using Medline/PubMed and Cochrane Library related to obesity clinical staging systems and we have collected the most representative studies, being the main obesity classification systems the BMI [7,8,9, 27, 28], Obesity Surgery Mortality Risk (OSMR) [26], King’s Obesity Staging Criteria (KOSC) [31], and Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) [25, 29, 30, 32] (Table 5). One of the most widespread is the EOSS, a medical scale which stages obese patients into five groups, based on their comorbidity and functional status (Table 6) [25, 32]. However, we propose a medical-surgical scale that allows prioritizing wait-listed patients, which takes into account simultaneously and equitably the degree of obesity severity and WT (Tables 1 and 2). Our scale simplifies the obesity severity into three categories (A/B/C), taking into consideration the BMI. Also, unlike the EOSS, we have considered the socio-labor impact derived from obesity as an independent variable. Warkentin LM et al. have studied the predictors of HRQL in 500 severely obese patients. They concluded that the clinical impact of BMI on physical and general HRQL was small, and mental health scores were not associated with BMI [13]. Therefore, it is convenient to separate the mental and functional repercussions from other variables such as BMI or obesity-related comorbidities. In a Canadian study in which consecutively recruited patients awaiting bariatric surgery were surveyed, most patients considered greater clinical severity and functional impairments related to obesity to be important prioritization indicators for surgery [33]. With this tool, it would avoid this problem, since it prioritizes patients in a global manner.
In Spain, the Delphi study reported the direct and indirect cost of obesity in 6.9% of the overall health cost [6]. Multiple economic-health studies on the treatment of morbid obesity demonstrate that bariatric surgery is cost-effective compared to behavioral and pharmacological measures. Surgery is an important initial expense, but it involves a medium to long-term investment with significant savings in health and socio-labor expenditure [34,35,36,37].
Finally, the problem must be addressed in a multifactorial/multidisciplinary way, including actions within the scope of management at care team, organization, and political levels, as well as improvements and transparency in current health problems divulgement, primary prevention, and health education.
Limitations
-
Limitations of BMI to evaluate the degree of obesity
-
Difficulty of a precise definition of the comorbidities and functional limitations
-
Socio-labor impact may be subjective, and physicians may have different judgments
-
WT may lead to changes in the evolution of obesity-related comorbidities
-
Studies are underway to corroborate in a prospective manner the sensitivity, specificity, prognosis, and utility of this score in the daily clinical practice
-
It required acceptancy at the political level and medical management of hospitals
Conclusion
Currently, patients with morbid obesity face prolonged WT for their clinical multidisciplinary assessment, complementary exams, and bariatric surgery waiting list. Since the obesity severity, the WT, and its clinical consequences are associated with an increase in morbimortality, we propose a complete, homogeneous, structured, and simple prioritization system for bariatric surgery waiting list.
References
Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, et al. Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk factors, 2001. JAMA. 2003;289(1):76–9.
Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, et al. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(17):1625–38. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021423.
Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. Consensus statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologist and American College of Endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm—2017 executive summary. Endocr Pract. 2017;23(2):207–38. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP161682.CS.
Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2013 Jul;34(28):2159–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht151.
Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 26;366(17):1567–76. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1200225.
Gabinete de Estudios Sociológicos Bernard Krief. Costes sociales y económicos de la obesidad y sus patologías asociadas: (hipertensión, hiperlipidemias y diabetes): los tratamientos de futuro y el costebeneficio generado por su aplicación en el horizonte del año 2005 en España: estudio prospectivo Delphi: libro blanco. Madrid: Bernard Krief; 1999.
Global BMI Mortality Collaboration, Di Angelantonio E, Bhupathiraju SHN, et al. Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. Lancet. 2016;388(10046):776–86.
Prospective Studies Collaboration, Whitlock G, Lewington S, et al. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900.000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet. 2009;373(9669):1083–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60318-4.
Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, et al. Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity usisng standard body mass index categories: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013;309(1):71–82. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.113905.
Katzmarzyk PT, Reeder BA, Elliot S, et al. Body mass index and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and all-cause mortality. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(2):147–51.
Aranceta J, Pérez Rodrigo C, Foz Sala M, et al. Tables of coronary risk evaluation adapted to the Spanish population: the DORICA study. Med Clin (Barc). 2004;123(18):686–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7753(04)75331-2.
Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Disposiciones generales. núm. 134, de 5 de junio de 2003, páginas 21830 a 21840. BOE-A-2003-11266. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2003-11266.
Warkentin LM, Majumdar SR, Johson JA, et al. Predictors of health-related quality of life in 500 severely obese patients. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(5):1367–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.20694.
Padwal RS, Sharma AM. Treating severe obesity: morbid weights and morbid waits. CMAJ. 2009;181(11):777–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081508.
Christou NV, Efthimiou E. Bariatric surgery waiting times in Canada. Can J Surg. 2009;52(3):229–34.
Sociedad Española para el Estudio de la Obesidad (SEEDO). Consenso SEEDO’2000 para la evaluación del sobrepeso y la obesidad y el establecimiento de criterios de intervención terapéutica. Med Clin (Barc). 2000;115(15):587–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7753(00)71632-0.
Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, et al. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004 Mar 10;291(10):1238–45. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.10.1238.
Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology. 2001;33(2):464–70. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2001.22172.
Escobar A, González N, Quintana JM, et al. Priorization of patients on the waiting list for hip and knee replacement: the patients’ views. Gac Sant. 2005;19(5):379–85.
Sampietro-Colom L, Espallargues M, Reina MD, et al. Citizens opinions, experiences and perceptions about waiting lists for elective cataract surgery and hip and knee replacement. Aten Primaria. 2004;33(2):86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0212-6567(04)79356-7.
Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg. 1991;78(3):355–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800780327.
Lakoff JM, Ellsmere J, Ransom T. Cause of death in patients awaiting bariatric surgery. Can J Surg. 2015;58(1):15–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.002914.
Alastrué A, García-Luna PP, Formiguera J, et al. Priorización de pacientes en cirugía bariátrica: índice de riesgo. Cir Esp. 2004;75(5):225–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-739X(04)72307-6.
Kral JG. Side effects, complications and problems in anti-obesity surgery: introduction of the Obesity Severity Index. Prog Obes Res. 1996;7:655–61.
Padwal RS, Pajewski NM, Allison DB, et al. Using the Edmonton obesity staging system to predict mortality in a population-representative cohort of people with overweight and obesity. CMAJ. 2011;183(14):E1059–66. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.110387.
De Maria 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(2):134–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2007.01.005.
Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, Wormser D, Kaptoge S, et al. Separate and combined associations of body-mass index and abdominal adiposity with cardiovascular disease: collaborative analysis of 58 prospective studies. Lancet. 2011;377(9771):1085–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60105-0.
Aasheim ET, Aylwin SJ, Radhakrishnan ST, et al. Assessment of obesity beyond body mass index to determine benefit of treatment. Clin Obes. 2011;1(2–3):77–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-8111.2011.00017.x.
Kuk JL, Ardern CI, Church TS, et al. Edmonton Obesity Staging System: association with weight history and mortality risk. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36(4):570–6. https://doi.org/10.1139/h11-058.
Chiappetta S, Stier C, Squillante S, et al. The importance of the Edmonton Obesity Staging System in predicting postoperative outcome and 30-day mortality after metabolic surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(10):1847–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.02.042.
Valderhaug TG, Aasheim ET, Sandbu R, et al. The association between severity of King’s Obesity Staging Criteria scores and treatment choice in patients with morbid obesity: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Obes. 2016;3(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40608-016-0133-1.
Sharma AM, Kushner RF. A proposed clinical staging system for obesity. Int J Obes. 2009;33(3):289–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2009.2.
Gill RS, Majumdar SR, Wang X, et al. Prioritization and willingness to pay for bariatric surgery: the patient perspective. Can J Surg. 2014;57(1):33–9. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.021212.
Craig BM, Tseng DS. Cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass for severe obesity. Am J Med. 2002;113(6):491–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01266-4.
Sampalis JS, Liberman M, Auger S, et al. The impact of weight reduction surgery on health-care costs in morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg. 2004;14(7):939–47. https://doi.org/10.1381/0960892041719662.
Colquitt JL, Picot J, Loverman E, et al. Surgery for obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2:CD003641.
Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt JL, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(41):1–190. 215-357, III-IV
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed Consent
It does not apply.
Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Casimiro Pérez, J.A., Fernández Quesada, C., del Val Groba Marco, M. et al. Obesity Surgery Score (OSS) for Prioritization in the Bariatric Surgery Waiting List: a Need of Public Health Systems and a Literature Review. OBES SURG 28, 1175–1184 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-3107-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-3107-6