4.4 Article

High-risk alcohol use after weight loss surgery

期刊

SURGERY FOR OBESITY AND RELATED DISEASES
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 508-513

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2013.12.014

关键词

Bariatric surgery; Roux-Y gastric bypass; Gastric banding; Alcohol

类别

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK073302, K24 DK087932] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bariatric or weight loss surgery (WLS) may alter alcohol metabolism resulting in a higher prevalence of problem drinking postoperatively. Few studies distinguish those who report improvements in drinking from those who report worsening behavior after surgery. The objective of this study was to characterize high-risk alcohol use before and after WLS and according to surgery type. Methods: We interviewed patients before and annually after WLS. High-risk alcohol use as assessed via a modified version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption. Results: Of 541 participants who underwent WLS, 375 (69% retention) completed the 1-year interview and 328 (63% retention) completed the 2-year interview. At 1 year, 13% reported high-risk drinking compared to 17% at baseline, P = .10; at year 2, 13% reported high-risk drinking compared to 15% at baseline, P = .39; 7% and 6% of patients, respectively, reported new high-risk drinking at 1- and 2-year follow-up. At both follow-up time points, more than half of those who reported high-risk drinking at baseline no longer did so. A larger proportion of gastric bypass patients (71%) reported amelioration in high-risk drinking than gastric banding (48%) at year 1, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .07); the difference largely dissipated by year 2 (50% versus 57%). Conclusion: Although 7% of patients report new high-risk alcohol use 1 year after WLS, more than half who reported high-risk alcohol use before surgery discontinued high-risk drinking. (C) 2014 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据