Abboud, Donna Maria

ABSTRACTIntroductionEsophageal dysmotility following metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) may relate to decreased gastric compliance. We investigated high‐resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) and secondary peristalsis assessed by functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) and their association with intragastric pressure after MBS.MethodsPatients undergoing HRM, FLIP, and barium esophagram (BE) after MBS were included. HRM metrics and proximal intragastric pressure at baseline (IGP baseline), during wet swallow‐induced esophagogastric junction relaxation (IGP EGJ opening), and following wet swallow‐induced esophagogastric junction opening with subsequent closure (IGP post EGJ closure) were measured. Contractile response was assessed during FLIP.ResultsForty patients (26 Roux en Y gastric bypass, 14 sleeve gastrectomy) with FLIP a median of 4 years after MBS, were identified. HRM was normal or consistent with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) in 33 (82.5%) patients, while the contractile response on FLIP was abnormal (disordered/impaired, absent, or spastic reactive) in 28 (70%). Delayed emptying on BE was numerically more frequent with abnormal FLIP (6% vs. 0%, p = 0.08). IGP post‐EGJ closure (median 21.8 vs. 15 mmHg, p = 0.03) and ∆ IGP post‐EGJ closure—IGP baseline (median 4 vs. 0 mmHg, p = 0.02) were greater and predictive of abnormal contractility on FLIP (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00–1.2, p = 0.03 and OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.07–2.39, p = 0.003, respectively).DiscussionAbnormal contractility on FLIP, reflecting disordered secondary peristalsis, frequently occurs despite normal HRM findings after MBS. Secondary peristalsis may be associated with reduced gastric compliance, reflected by elevated proximal intragastric pressure. FLIP contractility could serve as an early marker for post‐MBS esophageal dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate bowel preparation can result in decreased diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) has been used to assess the quality of bowel preparation. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are commonly used medications for diabetes mellitus and obesity that are known to delay gastrointestinal motility. We hypothesized that the use of GLP-1RA would be associated with decreased quality of bowel preparation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at a large academic medical center between December 2021 and December 2022. We included patients taking any GLP-1RA for diabetes or obesity during colonoscopy defined as our cases, and patients who were prescribed GLP-1RA at one point but not within 3 months of colonoscopy defined as our controls. We excluded patients on any promotility or antimotility agents and those without BBPS recorded on their procedure report. Independent t test assessed statistical differences in the case and control groups to compare the quality of bowel preparation for continuous variables, and the χ 2 test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate linear regression including diabetes as a covariate was also performed for continuous variables, and multivariate logistic regression was performed for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients were included in the study, comprising 265 (59%) cases and 181 controls (41%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diagnosis of diabetes ( P = 0.001) with a higher proportion of patients with diabetes in the cases. The mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls (7.0 ± 1.9 vs 7.5 ± 2.4, P = 0.046) when controlling for diabetes. The percentage of patients with a total BBPS score of <5 was significantly higher in cases (15.5% vs 6.6%, P = 0.01). The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy due to poor bowel preparation was also significantly higher in cases (18.9% vs 11.1%, P = 0.041). DISCUSSION: The use of GLP-1RA was associated with a statistically significantly lower quality of bowel preparation, with additional clinical significance given a notable difference in the need for a repeat colonoscopy. It will be essential to understand the cumulative effect of medications that may delay gastric emptying on the quality of bowel preparation to better understand the appropriate measures and counseling that need to be taken before undergoing outpatient colonoscopies.

Abstract Background and study aims Traditional transoral outlet reduction (TORe) is a minimally invasive endoscopic approach focused on reducing the aperture of the gastrojejunal (GJ) anastomosis, while the tubular transoral outlet reduction (tTORe) consists of tabularization of the distal pouch utilizing an O-shape gastroplasty suturing pattern. The primary aim of this study was to compare short-term weight loss between TORe and tTORe. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was conducted at a tertiary care bariatric center of excellence. The study included patients with history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) who had an endoscopic revision by TORe or tTORe and had follow-up data in their electronic medical record. The primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL). Results A total of 128 patients were included (tTORe=85, TORe=43). At 3 and 6 months, the tTORe and TORe cohorts presented similar %TBWL (3 months: 8.5±4.9 vs. 7.3±6.0, P = 0.27 and 6 months: 8.1±7.4 vs. 6.8±5.6, P = 0.44). At 9 months, there was a trend toward greater weight loss in the tTORe cohort (9.7±8.6% vs. 5.1±6.8%, P = 0.053). At 12 months, the %TBWL was significantly higher in the tubularization group compared to the standard group (8.2±10.8 vs. 2.3±7.3%, P = 0.01). Procedure time was significantly different between both groups (60.5 vs. 53.4 minutes, P = 0.03). The adverse events rate was similar between groups (8.2% vs. 7.0% for tTORe and TORe, respectively, P = 0.61). Conclusions The tTORe enhances efficacy and durability of the standard procedure without adding significant procedure-related risks.

Background The primary obesity surgery endoluminal 2.0 (POSE 2.0) procedure involves full-thickness gastric body plications to narrow the stomach using durable suture anchor pairs. We evaluated POSE 2.0 as a treatment strategy for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with obesity. Methods Adults with obesity and NAFLD were prospectively allocated based on their preference to undergo POSE 2.0 with lifestyle modification or lifestyle modification alone (control). Primary end points were improvement in controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and resolution of hepatic steatosis at 12 months. Secondary end points included %total body weight loss (%TBWL), change in serum measures of hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance, and procedure safety. Results 42 adult patients were included (20 in the POSE 2.0 arm and 22 in the control arm). At 12 months, POSE 2.0 significantly improved CAP, whereas lifestyle modification alone did not (P < 0.001 for POSE 2.0; P = 0.24 for control). Similarly, both resolution of steatosis and %TBWL were significantly higher with POSE 2.0 than with control at 12 months. Compared with controls, POSE 2.0 significantly improved liver enzymes, hepatic steatosis index, and aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio at 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusion POSE 2.0 was effective for NAFLD in patients with obesity, with good durability and safety profile.

Abstract Background and study aims Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is traditionally managed with surgical gastroenterostomy (surgical-GE) and enteral stenting (ES). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is now a third option. Large studies assessing their relative risks and benefits with adequate follow-up are lacking. We conducted a comparative analysis of patients who underwent EUS-GE, ES, or surgical-GE for GOO. Patients and methods In this retrospective comparative cohort study, consecutive patients presenting with GOO who underwent EUS-GE, ES, or surgical-GE at two academic institutions were reviewed and independently cross-edited to ensure accurate reporting. The primary outcome was need for reintervention. Secondary outcomes were technical and clinical success, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 436 patients (232 EUS-GE, 131 ES, 73 surgical-GE) were included. The median duration of follow-up of the entire cohort was 185.5 days (interquartile range 55.25–454.25 days). The rate of reintervention in the EUS-GE group was lower than in the ES and surgical-GE groups (0.9 %, 12.2 %, and 13.7 %, P < 0.0001). Technical success was achieved in 98.3 %, 99.2 %, and 100 % (P = 0.58), and clinical success was achieved in 98.3 %, 91.6 %, and 90.4 % (P < 0.0001) in the EUS-GE, ES, and surgical-GE groups, respectively. The EUS-GE group had a shorter LOS (2 days vs. 3 days vs. 5 days, P < 0.0001) and a lower AE rate than the ES and surgical-GE groups (8.6 % vs. 38.9 % vs. 27.4 %, P < 0.0001). Conclusion This large cohort study demonstrates the safety and palliation durability of EUS-GE as an alternative strategy for GOO palliation in select patients.

AbstractObesity has been escalating as one of the worst public health epidemics. Conservative therapies including lifestyle modifications and weight loss medications have limited efficacy and long-term sustainability. Bariatric surgeries, although effective, remain underutilized due to their cost, safety concerns, and patient acceptance. In the past two decades, endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) have emerged as safe, effective, and less invasive options for the treatment of obesity and its comorbidities, with recent studies reporting favorable outcomes in terms of weight loss and metabolic parameters. This article reviews the major and newly developed EBMTs, with emphasis on their metabolic effects and potential use in the management of metabolic conditions.