ライフサイエンスコーパス: RYGB

1 RYGB (n = 19) or Why WAIT (n = 19) including 12 weekly m

2 RYGB accelerates caseinate digestion and amino acid abso

3 RYGB increases intestinal glucose disposal and VSG delay

4 RYGB patients had a higher body mass index (49.8+/-8.2 v

5 RYGB pigs displayed improved glycemic control, which was

6 RYGB rapidly reverses obesity-induced endothelial dysfun

7 RYGB surgery is one of the few interventions that can re

8 RYGB surgery results in improved metabolic flexibility (

9 RYGB was performed using linear staplers during open sur

10 (0.99 +/- 0.06 vs 1.04 +/- 0.06; P < 0.05), RYGB induced significantly greater increase in INR in th

11 rvention (3 RYGB, 1 LAGB, and 3 LWLI), and 1 RYGB participant was excluded for current smoking.

12 Among 1087 RYGB patients, 651 (60%) had complete 10-year follow-up,

13 d to undergo their allocated intervention (3 RYGB, 1 LAGB, and 3 LWLI), and 1 RYGB participant was ex

14 We propensity score matched 4935 AGB to 4935 RYGB patients according to baseline age group, sex, race

15 NASH was present in 54.5% RYGB and 51.5% SG patients (P > 0.05).

16 Of the 81,751 RYGB patients, the mortality rate was 0.15%.

17 Participants were 957 RYGB patients enrolled in an ongoing longitudinal cohort

18 On the basis of these results, a RYGB mortality risk score was developed.

19 After RYGB, 24 of 26 patients had steatorrhea and urine oxalat

20 After RYGB, basal plasma leucine concentration did not change,

21 After RYGB, responders and nonresponders showed similar BW los

22 % off medications) was observed in 49% after RYGB and 28% after SG (P < 0.001).

23 ight loss at 5 years was 25.5%+/-11.8% after RYGB versus 21.4%+/-12.7% after AGB (P<0.001).

24 The incidence of diabetes was 0.9% after RYGB and 3.2% after LAGB.

25 the 5-HT neurotransmission before and after RYGB are in accordance with a model wherein the cerebral

26 t the prescription drug use before and after RYGB surgery.

27 Before and after RYGB, high oxalate intake contributed to the severity of

28 in severely obese patients before and after RYGB.

29 nsulin release was markedly attenuated after RYGB compared with ILM.

30 secretion was paradoxically augmented after RYGB.

31 patients reported improved well-being after RYGB surgery, but the prevalence of symptoms was high an

32 etermine the greatest glycemic benefit after RYGB.

33 ether this explains all of the changes after RYGB.

34 ommonly leading to health care contact after RYGB surgery were abdominal pain (489 [34.2%]), fatigue

35 In contrast, after RYGB, insulin sensitivity improved gradually with weight

36 Eight days after RYGB in diet-induced obese rats, higher plasma levels of

37 s unchanged after LS/IMM but decreased after RYGB, except for a rapid increase during the first 30 mi

38 xerts important insulinotropic effects after RYGB and ILM, but the enhanced incretin response plays a

39 een obese individuals were re-examined after RYGB surgery.

40 (22.8% vs 10.9%) and increased further after RYGB-that is, antidepressants (PR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.07-

41 dy weight at 3 years were the greatest after RYGB at 25.0% (2.0%), followed by LAGB at 15.0% (2.0%) a

42 ates for all comorbidities were higher after RYGB than AGB.

43 Hyperoxaluria after RYGB correlated with steatorrhea and was presumably caus

44 that protein digestion is not impaired after RYGB.

45 (HDL) dysfunction is rapidly improved after RYGB via a GLP-1-dependent mechanism.

46 ional normalized ratio (INR) increased after RYGB (0.98 +/- 0.05 vs 1.14 +/- 0.11; P < 0.05) and SG (

47 red over 6 h postprandially) increased after RYGB (from 10% +/- 8% before to 15% +/- 9% after surgery

48 cidence of PHH significantly increased after RYGB but remained stable between 1 and 5 years.

49 Insulin secretion increased after RYGB only in patients with T2D and only in response to o

50 ormal glucose tolerance, and increased after RYGB surgery in those individuals who had remission of T

51 1 (GLP-1) was substantially increased after RYGB, while gastric inhibitory polypeptide and glucagon

52 uropsychiatric drugs further increased after RYGB.

53 intestinal glucose disposal increases after RYGB surgery.

54 binding predicted greater weight loss after RYGB and that the change in 5-HT2A receptor and 5-HT tra

55 d in patients with initial weight loss after RYGB performed at least 2 years earlier.

56 associated with long-term weight loss after RYGB were identified.

57 er binding correlated with weight loss after RYGB.

58 Fasting glucose was lower after RYGB than after LS/IMM, although the glucose area under

59 els for remission of diabetes mellitus after RYGB and AGB, age (RYGB: odds ratio [OR], 0.976; 95% CI,

60 used to predict the remission of MetS after RYGB with high accuracy.

61 %, 5.6%), were studied before and 3 mo after RYGB.

62 overall T2D remission rates 14 months after RYGB surgery (9%) compared with patients not taking insu

63 predictors of its remission 12 months after RYGB.

64 paring prescription drug use 36 months after RYGB/index date with use 6 months before this date (base

65 lipoprotein cholesterol increased more after RYGB compared with Why WAIT.

66 0.001) and improved significantly more after RYGB than after AGB [steatosis (%): 1 year, 7.9+/-13.7 v

67 patients at greater risk for mortality after RYGB surgery.

68 are risk factors for 30-day mortality after RYGB.

69 homeostasis, Si, and AIR was observed after RYGB surgery and weight loss.

70 t not all of the improvements observed after RYGB.

71 ucose sensitivity, which improved only after RYGB, and improved disposition index were associated wit

72 ive cohort of 210 consecutive patients after RYGB between January 2010 and December 2011.

73 on was an independent predictor of PHH after RYGB (receiver operating characteristics curve area unde

74 iate logistic regression analysis, PHH after RYGB was independently associated with lower age (P = 0.

75 fy patients at risk for developing PHH after RYGB.

76 play a role on the appetite reduction after RYGB because there is a strict and inverse relationship

77 ere seen in endogenous leucine release after RYGB.

78 ter possibility for diabetes remission after RYGB [odds ratio, 2.16 (95% CI 1.10-4.26)], after adjust

79 ater probability of diabetes remission after RYGB and may serve as a diagnostic marker in preoperativ

80 ntly improve the odds of T2D remission after RYGB surgery in patients also using insulin.

81 he markedly exaggerated GLP-1 response after RYGB, changes in postprandial glucose and insulin respon

82 ay augment the hormonal responses seen after RYGB surgery.

83 nsitivity also increased significantly after RYGB.

84 d gastrointestinal transit in subjects after RYGB and in matched control subjects.

85 The improvement of NAFLD was superior after RYGB than after AGB.

86 Symptoms after RYGB surgery were reported by 1266 patients (88.6%); 966

87 explain the improved glucose tolerance after RYGB as food intake and body weight remained identical.

88 ase persisted at 10 years of follow-up after RYGB.

89 action, significantly increased 1 year after RYGB (from 496.61 +/- 400.41 to 987.88 +/- 637.41mug/L,

90 MetS at the moment of surgery.One year after RYGB, there was a significant decrease in the prevalence

91 erely obese patients before and 1 year after RYGB, while patients consumed their usual diet.

92 re predictive of lower HbA1c at 1 year after RYGB.

93 efore and 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year after RYGB.

94 e longitudinal study for up to 5 years after RYGB (n=681) or AGB (n=555).

95 Three years after RYGB surgery, we found large reductions in the use of tr

96 or more symptoms a median of 4.7 years after RYGB surgery.

97 and on gastrointestinal motility years after RYGB.

98 f diabetes mellitus after RYGB and AGB, age (RYGB: odds ratio [OR], 0.976; 95% CI, 0.965-0.988 and AG

99 For remission of hypertension, age (RYGB: OR, 0.964; 95% CI, 0.957-0.972 and AGB: OR, 0.968;

100 years, the use had decreased slightly among RYGB patients [PR = 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) =

101 markedly during the initial 1-3 mo after an RYGB, whereas the BMR moderately decreased.

102 ale patients during the initial 3 y after an RYGB.

103 showed the typical pattern reported after an RYGB.

104 anges in body composition over time after an RYGB.

105 Both AGB and RYGB were associated with downward trends in costs; howe

106 Both laparoscopic AGB and RYGB were associated with flattened total health care co

107 however, it is unknown whether exercise and RYGB surgery-induced weight loss would additively improv

108 ur results provide evidence that obesity and RYGB have a dynamic effect on the skeletal muscle proteo

109 y was to investigate the role of obesity and RYGB on the human skeletal muscle proteome.

110 ssion in individuals with or without T2DM at RYGB and on average 17 (+/-5.6) months later.

111 , and in those with surgical symptoms before RYGB surgery (PR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.25-1.43).

112 x, smoking, and experiencing symptoms before RYGB surgery.

113 ulation was slightly lower after than before RYGB (85% +/- 9% and 90% +/- 8%, respectively) but was s

114 heir well-being was improved after vs before RYGB surgery, while 113 (8.1%) reported reduced well-bei

115 Both RYGB and AGB led to statistically and clinically signifi

116 plasma glucose area under the curve in both RYGB and LAGB groups (-4% +/- 9% and -6% +/- 5%, respect

117 mprove general quality-of-life measures, but RYGB provides greater improvement in the effect of weigh

118 ened total health care cost trajectories but RYGB patients experienced lower total and prescription c

119 ssessed how these parameters are affected by RYGB surgery.

120 weight loss ( approximately 21%) induced by RYGB (n = 16) or LAGB (n = 9).

121 Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB)

122 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) account for >95% of ba

123 ovements following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are frequently attributed to the enhanced GLP-1 re

124 te remission after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are not fully understood.

125 iabetes effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are well-known, but the underlying mechanisms rema

126 term durability of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) at an accredited center.

127 rans who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) compared with nonsurgical matches and the 4-year w

128 e 2 diabetes after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been attributed partly to weight loss, but mec

129 opic surgery after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been linked to substantial complications and m

130 e metabolism after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been the subject of uncertainty.

131 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) improves glycemic control within days after surger

132 nd late effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 22 patients with T2D and 16 with normal glucose

133 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) involves exclusion of major parts of the stomach a

134 yperoxaluria after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is generally attributed to fat malabsorption.

135 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is highly effective in reversing obesity and assoc

136 The effect of a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) on body weight has been amply documented, but few

137 ectomy (SG) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) on liver function in bariatric patients with non-a

138 rminology code for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in the MarketS

139 function following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB)

140 were randomized to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or to hypocaloric diet (HC diet) restriction.

141 rocedures, such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG), are the most

142 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces substantial body weight (BW) loss and enh

143 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) reduces body weight and cardiovascular mortality i

144 atients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and a matched population-based comparison

145 Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and exercise can improve insulin sensitivi

146 improvements after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery are not entirely clear.

147 of symptoms after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery are sparse.

148 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery causes profound weight loss and improves i

149 loss 5 years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery for morbid obesity in a large nationwide c

150 D) remission after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery for patients taking insulin.

151 llitus who undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery or standard medical care remain unclear.

152 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery results in exaggerated postprandial insuli

153 upregulated after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery, which contributes to a weight-loss-indepe

154 ed or prevented by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery.

155 ht loss induced by Roux-in-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery.

156 with mortality in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery.

157 trectomy, proximal Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and distal RYGB].

158 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), a

159 DM remission after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

160 apoA-IV) rise with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

161 ten reported after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

162 weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

163 rgical treatments (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB] or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding [LAGB])

164 t with multiple imputation for missing data, RYGB participants had the greatest mean weight loss from

165 In obese patients with type 2 diabetes, RYGB produces greater weight loss and sustained improvem

166 (sleeve gastrectomy and proximal and distal RYGB) dynamically affected this fingerprint in a procedu

167 Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and distal RYGB].

168 Of 1033 eligible RYGB patients who consented to participate in longitudin

169 In response to cold exposure, RYGB mice exhibited an improved capacity to maintain the

170 Finally, RYGB restored HDL-mediated cholesterol efflux capacity.

171 ding reduction in comorbid disease following RYGB.

172 Moderate exercise following RYGB surgery provides additional improvements in S(I), S

173 glucose below 126 mg/dL was higher following RYGB than Why WAIT (58% vs 16%, respectively; P = .03).

174 d 7.9%* at 12 months and 60 months following RYGB (*: P < 0.001).

175 d that these changes were reversed following RYGB.

176 ization) of self-reported symptoms following RYGB surgery.

177 GB patients and 14.8 (95% CI, 14.6-14.9) for RYGB patients (P < .001).

178 ry to determine whether this is the case for RYGB as well.

179 after surgery, median actual weight loss for RYGB participants was 41 kg (IQR, 31-52), corresponding

180 h clinical efficacy very similar to that for RYGB, in whole-body apoA-IV knockout (KO) mice.

181 On the other hand, RYGB patients had a lower risk of long-term subsequent i

182 On the other hand, RYGB was associated with increased ED visits in the 2 ye

183 osely replicates gastric pouch size of human RYGB surgery of about 5% of total gastric volume.

184 In RYGB individuals, SLMM elicited faster and sharper rise

185 ike peptide 1 receptor were more abundant in RYGB pigs.

186 tly at the later stages of meal challenge in RYGB surgery subjects but increased with CR.

187 re rapid rate of appearance and clearance in RYGB surgery subjects than in CR subjects during the MMT

188 chanistic insights into foregut exclusion in RYGB and identify SGLT3 as a possible antidiabetes thera

189 d susceptibility to hypoglycemic symptoms in RYGB surgery subjects.

190 n of glucose disappearance were unaltered in RYGB subjects.

191 Body weight in RYGB pigs and sham-operated, pair-fed control pigs devel

192 Laparoscopic RYGB results in highly favorable outcomes with reduced i

193 including 335 open RYGB and 316 laparoscopic RYGB.

194 expectedly higher in open (vs laparoscopic) RYGB (16.9% vs 4.7%; P = 0.02).

195 f preoperative antihypertensive medications (RYGB: OR, 0.104; 95% CI, 0.067-0.161 and AGB: OR, 0.239;

196 At baseline, more RYGB patients (median 40 years, 22% males) used a prescr

197 tudy was to develop and characterize a mouse RYGB model that closely replicates gastric pouch size of

198 estyle intervention-alone group, with 65% of RYGB, 33% of LAGB, and none of the intensive lifestyle w

199 2DM remission was achieved by 40% (n = 8) of RYGB, 29% (n = 6) of LAGB, and no intensive lifestyle we

200 ) seems to mediate the metabolic benefits of RYGB partly in a weight loss-independent manner.

201 which diminishes the restrictive capacity of RYGB.

202 We investigated the effect of RYGB on amino acid appearance in the systemic circulatio

203 direct evidence for the plausible effect of RYGB to improve vagal neuronal health in the brain by re

204 m data have established the effectiveness of RYGB for weight loss and comorbidity amelioration.

205 e mechanisms, we investigated the effects of RYGB on beta-cell function and beta-cell mass in the pig

206 led studies have investigated the effects of RYGB on cardiovascular risk factors.

207 The long-term effects of RYGB surgery on glucostatic parameters are partly depend

208 The protective effects of RYGB were prevented by the GLP-1 receptor antagonist exe

209 tective properties, mimicking the effects of RYGB.

210 and lipid homeostasis that are hallmarks of RYGB.

211 insight into preoperative identification of RYGB patients at higher risk for long-term suboptimal ou

212 However, the impact of RYGB with or without exercise on skeletal muscle mitocho

213 Our data from a pig model of RYGB emphasize the key role of improved beta-cell functi

214 In multivariate analysis, the superiority of RYGB was primarily but not entirely explained by weight

215 mplete 10-year follow-up, including 335 open RYGB and 316 laparoscopic RYGB.

216 Patients undergoing open RYGB had a higher preoperative body mass index.

217 18 to 64 years who underwent a first AGB or RYGB between 2005 and 2011.

218 7 patients who underwent laparoscopic AGB or RYGB procedures with a median follow-up time of 2.3 year

219 morbidly obese patients randomized to SG or RYGB were included in a secondary outcome analysis.

220 Post-RYGB, 49 proteins were returned to normal levels after s

221 Post-RYGB, acceleration of stomach emptying during the first

222 ted postprandial glucose concentrations post-RYGB (3.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.4 mol/6 h, P = 0.001).

223 (45.1 +/- 3.6 years) pre- and 3 months post-RYGB, and euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamps were used t

224 d a normalization of ribosomal proteins post-RYGB.

225 and 280 proteins differed significantly post-RYGB.

226 )) were demonstrated in the pre- versus post-RYGB, both P < 0.05.

227 mary efficacy end point was reduction in pre-RYGB excess weight by 15% or more excess body mass index

228 ss index (BMI) 42.8 kg/m] undergoing primary RYGB between May 1, 2007 and June 30, 2012, were collect

229 Furthermore, in patients and rats, RYGB rapidly reversed HDL dysfunction and restored the e

230 Compared with the sham-operated rats, RYGB improved nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability resultin

231 rtly after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB) and before there is major weight loss.

232 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB) results in remission of insulin resistance and T2D

233 obesity is Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGB), which results in rapid remission of type 2 diabet

234 total annual costs that were 16% higher than RYGB patients (P < .001; absolute change: $818; 95% CI,

235 were 17% to 32% higher for AGB patients than RYGB patients (P < .001).

236 ociated with 27% to 29% fewer ED visits than RYGB (P < .001; absolute changes: -0.6; 95% CI, -0.9 to

237 t from 10 health care systems, we found that RYGB resulted in much greater weight loss than AGB but h

238 Preliminary results show that RYGB was the most effective treatment, followed by LAGB

239 The RYGB group lost more weight and had greater improvement

240 The RYGB risk score can be used to determine patients at gre

241 drugs was two-fold higher at baseline in the RYGB cohort (22.8% vs 10.9%) and increased further after

242 In the RYGB cohort, large, sustained decreases occurred for tre

243 ts included 1 ulcer treated medically in the RYGB group and 2 rehospitalizations for dehydration in t

244 T2DM were 50% and 17%, respectively, in the RYGB group and 27% and 23%, respectively, in the LAGB gr

245 In the RYGB surgery group, changes in leucine/isoleucine, methi

246 nd trend of these measures in the AGB vs the RYGB groups and difference-in-differences analysis to es

247 When the RYGB risk score was applied, a significant trend (P<0.00

248 th type 2 diabetes mellitus were assigned to RYGB surgery (n = 30) or DSE (n = 31).

249 The intestine adapts differently to RYGB vs VSG.

250 Prior to RYGB, 12 of 26 patients had mild to moderate steatorrhea

251 d to regulate the body weight in response to RYGB.

252 um results in physiologic changes similar to RYGB, including sustained improvements in weight, glucos

253 and body mass index but who did not undergo RYGB surgery were surveyed as a point of reference.

254 All patients (N = 1087) undergoing RYGB at a single institution over a 20-year study period

255 nts with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing RYGB surgery or diabetes support and education (DSE).

256 Patients with NASH undergoing RYGB are more susceptible to early transient deteriorati

257 Only 19 of 564 patients undergoing RYGB (3.4%) regained weight back to within an estimated

258 A total of 405 of 564 patients undergoing RYGB (71.8%) had more than 20% estimated weight loss, an

259 Patients undergoing RYGB and nonsurgical matches had a mean body mass index

260 Results: The 1787 patients undergoing RYGB had a mean (SD) age of 52.1 (8.5) years and 5305 no

261 hort study included 9908 patients undergoing RYGB in Denmark during 2006 to 2010 and 99,080 matched g

262 Patients undergoing RYGB lost 16.9% (95% CI, 6.2%-27.6%) more of their basel

263 Patients undergoing RYGB lost 21% (95% CI, 11%-31%) more of their baseline w

264 At 4 years, patients undergoing RYGB lost 27.5% (95% CI, 23.8%-31.2%) of their baseline

265 Of 2238 patients undergoing RYGB surgery, 1429 (63.7%) responded to the survey.

266 uenced the MC4R locus in patients undergoing RYGB to investigate diabetes resolution in carriers of r

267 that were weight matched to those undergoing RYGB.

268 ears were compared among veterans undergoing RYGB (n = 1785), SG (n = 379), and AGB (n = 246).

269 y mass index [BMI] was 45.9; 70.4% underwent RYGB; 25.0% underwent LAGB).

270 treme responders and nonresponders underwent RYGB surgery.

271 Twenty participants underwent RYGB; 21, LAGB; and 20, LWLI, with 12-month retention ra

272 Obese male rats underwent RYGB, VSG, or sham (control) operations.

273 ith 128 men and women who recently underwent RYGB surgery (within 1-3 months).

274 etween individuals or animals that underwent RYGB vs VSG.

275 In rats and humans that underwent RYGB, the Roux limb became hyperplasic, with an increase

276 lial cells of rats and humans that underwent RYGB.

277 Twenty of them underwent RYGB, whereas 20 received lifestyle modification suggest

278 ux limb sections from patients who underwent RYGB 1-5 years after surgery.

279 otal of 659 patients with T2DM who underwent RYGB and SG at an academic center in the United States a

280 glucose occurs in obese people who underwent RYGB compared with those who underwent laparoscopic adju

281 ctive cohorts of 1787 veterans who underwent RYGB from January 1, 2000, through September 30, 2011 (5

282 with type 2 diabetes mellitus who underwent RYGB or nonsurgical intensive lifestyle modification (IL

283 se trial in patients (n = 101) who underwent RYGB surgery and completed either a 6-month moderate exe

284 31, 2014, among 2238 patients who underwent RYGB surgery between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2

285 subjects with type 2 diabetes who underwent RYGB surgery or matched CR.

286 year weight change in veterans who underwent RYGB, adjustable gastric banding (AGB), or sleeve gastre

287 this retrospective cohort study followed up RYGB patients before surgery to 7 to 12 years after surg

288 0.140-0.408), and preoperative diuretic use (RYGB: OR, 1.729; 95% CI, 1.462-2.045 and AGB: OR, 1.648;

289 CI, 1.039-1.351), preoperative insulin use (RYGB: OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.114-0.171; AGB: OR, 0.174; 95%

290 566), and other antidiabetic medication use (RYGB: OR, 0.747; 95% CI, 0.568-0.981 and AGB: OR, 0.506;

291 0.131-0.230), preoperative sulfonylurea use (RYGB: OR, 0.616; 95% CI, 0.505-0.752 and AGB: OR, 0.449;

292 adjusted models, the hazard ratio for AGB vs RYGB patients experiencing any 30-day major adverse even

293 The hazard ratios comparing AGB vs RYGB patients experiencing subsequent intervention and h

294 Within 1 week, RYGB reduced basal glucose production, improved basal he

295 was an intermediate group, however, in which RYGB was significantly more effective than SG, likely re

296 With RYGB, there was a trend toward increased BA [total: 1.37

297 S/IMM) alone (n = 34) or in conjunction with RYGB (n = 34).

298 uality of Life-Lite score improved more with RYGB and correlated with greater weight loss compared wi

299 nal study of 38 obese diabetic patients with RYGB, we found higher baseline stearic acid/palmitic aci

300 0.982; 95% CI, 0.971-0.933), procedure year (RYGB: OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.012-1.218 and AGB: OR, 1.185;