Badurdeen, Dilhana

Purpose of review The aim of this review is to present the current state of the field, highlight recent developments, and describe the clinical outcomes of these endoluminal bariatric and metabolic procedures. Recent findings The landscape of endoluminal devices and techniques for treating obesity has expanded significantly, with FDA-approved therapies currently available to patients with a body mass index values as high as 50 kg/m2. Although notable advancements have been made in this area, there is a need for further emphasis to be placed on the metabolic improvements resulting from these therapies, in addition to the conventional focus on weight loss outcomes. Some of these procedures are now FDA approved for the treatment of metabolic disease as opposed to weight loss. To achieve the most favorable results, it is imperative that all endoluminal interventions are combined with a moderately intensive diet and lifestyle program lasting at least 12 months. Summary Endoluminal metabolic and bariatric therapy represents a bridge between lifestyle counseling, pharmaceutical interventions, and the most efficacious treatment for obesity, bariatric surgery. By virtue of its minimally invasive approach, this therapy may be an appealing option for patients who are ineligible for, or averse to, bariatric surgery and who have experienced suboptimal outcomes or unable to afford medical treatments. Furthermore, these interventions may be particularly beneficial in the early stages of obesity.

Abstract Background and study aims There is minimal research on real-world, large-volume data comparing endoscopic bariatric therapy (EBT) to laparoscopic bariatric therapy (LBT). This study aimed to compare 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality outcomes of primary EBT vs LBT using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. Patients and methods Patients aged 18 to 80 with body mass index (BMI) 35 to 40 kg/m2 undergoing primary procedures were included. Propensity score matching 1:50 was performed for EBT versus LBT based on age, sex, and BMI. Results We matched 211 EBTs with 9,059 LBTs. Operative length (63.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.9, 69.8 versus 81.1, 95 % CI: 80.1, 82.1) and length of stay (0.49 days, 95 % CI: 0.29, 0.69 versus 1.43 days, 95 % CI: 1.41, 1.45) were significantly lower in the EBT group than the LBT group. There was no difference between EBT and LBT in the odds of readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.08, 1.25), reoperation (OR = 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.05, 2.84), or reintervention (OR = 0.98, 95 % CI: 0.24, 3.99). After controlling for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sleep apnea, history of myocardial infarction, hypertension requiring medications, and diabetes, EBT continued to be associated with lower odds of having any adverse event (AE) than LBT, with an OR of 0.34 (95 % CI: 0.16, 0.69). Subgroup analysis comparing EBT to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) showed that EBT was associated with a lower risk having any AE than LSG, with an OR of 0.39 (95 % CI: 0.19, 0.79). Conclusions EBT is associated with a lower 30-day AE rate and shorter procedural length and length of stay than LBT, with similar rates of readmission, reintervention, and reoperation.

Background and Aim: Despite widespread adoption and encouraging results seen over the last 5 years, no consensus exists regarding the endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) technique, training, or preprocedure and postprocedure management of the patient. The aim of our survey was to assess practice trends and preferences of bariatric endoscopists with respect to ESG. Methods: Using a digital platform, we conducted a worldwide survey by emailing a link with an electronic questionnaire to 1200 bariatric endoscopists trained to perform endoscopic suturing using the Apollo Overstitch suturing device (Apollo Endosurgery). Results: We received 221 responses that were included in the analysis. Fifty-one responders (36.4%) required 1 to 10 procedures, and 37 (26.4%) needed 11 to 20 procedures to become proficient at ESG. Ninety-six (68.6%) stated that lower body mass index thresholds should be adopted for Asian and Arab patients. There was no consensus on the ideal number of sutures, with 45 (32.1%), 42 (30%), 36 (25.7%), 13 (9.3%), and 4 (2.9%) recommending 4 to 6, 5 to 7, 6 to 8, 7 to 9, and 8 to 12 sutures, respectively. The primary barriers to establishing an endobariatric program were the inability to establish a cash pay model, 77 (95.1%); lack of institutional support, 61 (75.3%); and difficulty in establishing an ambulatory surgical center/hospital to perform ESG, 73 (90.1%). Conclusions: ESG practice trends remain heterogenous among practitioners in regard to indication, technique, and preprocedure and postprocedure management. Specific ESG guidelines are warranted, and this survey will assist in providing the framework for these guidelines to be written.

Background We conducted this study to compare the weight loss outcome of intragastric balloons (IGBs) in conjunction with pharmacotherapy vs IGB and intensive lifestyle changes alone. Methods This was a multicenter, non-randomized, retrospective study involving 4 academic hospitals. Patients underwent IGB placement with or without concomitant anti-obesity pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome was percent total weight loss (TBWL) after IGB placement at 6 and 12 months. Results This study included 102 patients, with 23 patients (mean age 46.6 years, 82.6% female) treated with IGB/pharmacotherapy and 79 patients (mean age 46.0 years, 88.6% female) treated with IGB/lifestyle modifications. Patients had a 100% follow-up rate at 6 and 12 months. At 6 months following IGB placement, both groups achieved a similar %TBWL. At 12 months, %TBWL was greater in the IGB/pharmacotherapy group (12.6% ± 1.2 vs 9.7% ± 0.7, P = .04). 65.2% of patients achieved ≥10% TBWL at 12 months in the IGB/pharmacotherapy group, compared to 38.0% in the IGB/lifestyle group ( P < .05). The proportion of patients that achieved ≥15% weight loss at 12 months was also significantly different between the IGB/pharmacotherapy and IGB/lifestyle groups (30.4% vs 20.3%, P < .05). Discussion IGB with concomitant use of pharmacotherapy did not improve weight loss while the IGB was in place compared to IGB and lifestyle changes. However, patients receiving IGB with pharmacotherapy did have greater weight loss and diminished weight regain after balloon removal compared to those receiving just IGB and lifestyle changes.