Hussan, Hisham

AbstractBackgroundObesity worsens various gastrointestinal pathologies. While bariatric surgery ameliorates obesity, it substantially modifies the gastrointestinal system depending on surgery type, with limited data on subsequent impact on obesity‐related gastrointestinal admissions.MethodsUsing the 2012–2014 Nationwide Readmission Database, we included individuals with obesity who received vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG), Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass (RYGB), or hernia repair (HR–control surgery). Our main focus was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for gastrointestinal inpatient admissions within 6 months following surgery compared to the 6 months preceding it, while controlling for several confounding factors. Gastrointestinal admissions were grouped into postoperative complications or obesity‐associated gastrointestinal conditions.ResultsOur cohort included 140,103 adults with RYGB, 132,253 with VSG, and 12,436 HR controls. Postoperative gastrointestinal complications were most common after RYGB, prominently obstruction (aOR = 33.17, 95%CI: 18.01, 61.10), and Clostridium difficile infection (aOR: 12.52, 95%CI: 6.22, 25.19). VSG also saw significantly increased but less frequent similar conditions. Notably, for gastrointestinal conditions associated with obesity, acute pancreatitis risk was higher post‐VSG (aOR = 6.26, 95%CI: 4.02, 9.73). Post‐RYGB patients were most likely to be admitted for cholelithiasis with cholecystitis (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 3.24, 5.31), followed by chronic liver disease (aOR: 3.00, 95% CI: 2.33, 3.87). The risk of noninfectious colitis admissions was threefold higher after RYGB and VSG. No gastrointestinal conditions showed an increase after HR.ConclusionDespite weight loss, bariatric surgery was associated with an increased risk of hepato‐pancreatobiliary and colitis admissions related to obesity in the first six postoperative months, with considerable variations in rates of gastrointestinal conditions by surgery type.

INTRODUCTION: Intragastric balloons (IGBs) are a safe and effective treatment for obesity. However, limited knowledge exists on the underlying biological changes with IGB placement. METHODS: This single-institution study was part of an adjustable IGB randomized controlled trial. Subjects with obesity were randomized in a 2 is to 1 ratio to 32 weeks of IGB with diet/exercise counseling (n = 8) vs counseling alone (controls, n = 4). Diet/exercise counseling was continued for 24 weeks post-IGB removal to assess weight maintenance. We used mass spectrometry for nontargeted plasma lipidomics analysis and 16S rRNA sequencing to profile the fecal microbiome. RESULTS: Subjects with IGBs lost 15.5% of their body weight at 32 weeks vs 2.59% for controls ( P < 0.05). Maintenance of a 10.5% weight loss occurred post-IGB explant. IGB placement, followed by weight maintenance, led to a −378.9 μM/L reduction in serum free fatty acids compared with pre-IGB (95% confidence interval: 612.9, −145.0). This reduction was mainly in saturated, mono, and omega-6 fatty acids when compared with pre-IGB. Polyunsaturated phosphatidylcholines also increased after IGB placement (difference of 27 μM/L; 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 52.8). Compared with controls, saturated and omega-6 free fatty acids (linoleic and arachidonic acids) were reduced after IGB placement. The fecal microbiota changed post-IGB placement and weight maintenance vs pre-IGB ( P < 0.05). Further analysis showed a possible trend toward reduced Firmicutes and increased Bacteroidetes post-IGB and counseling, a change that was not conclusively different from counseling alone. DISCUSSION: IGB treatment is associated with an altered fecal microbiome profile and may have a better effect on obesity-related lipidome than counseling alone.