Citations

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is performed in clinical practice by gastroenterologists and bariatric surgeons. Given the increasing regulatory approval and global adoption, we aimed to evaluate real-world outcomes in multidisciplinary practices involving bariatric surgeons and gastroenterologists across the United States. Patients and methods We included adult patients with obesity who underwent ESG from January 2013 to August 2022 in seven academic and private centers in the United States. Patient and procedure characteristics, serious adverse events (SAEs), and weight loss outcomes up to 24 months were analyzed. SPSS (version 29.0) was used for all statistical analyses. Results A total of 1506 patients from seven sites included 235 (15.6%) treated by surgeons and 1271 (84.4%) treated by gastroenterologists. There were no baseline differences between groups. Gastroenterologists used argon plasma coagulation for marking significantly more often than surgeons (P<0.001). Surgeons placed sutures in the fundus in all instances whereas gastroenterologist placed them in the fundus in less than 1% of the cases (P<0.001>). Procedure times were significantly different between groups, with surgeons requiring approximately 20 minutes more during the procedure than gastroenterologists (P<0.001). Percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) and percent responders achieving >10 and >15% TBWL were similar between the two groups at 12, 18, and 24 months. Rates of SAEs were low and similar at 1.7% for surgeons and 2.7% for gastroenterologists (P>0.05). Conclusions Data from a large US cohort show significant and sustained weight loss with ESG and an excellent safety profile in both bariatric surgery and gastroenterology practices, supporting the scalability of the procedure across practices in a multidisciplinary setting.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) has gained popularity over the past decade and has been adopted in both academic and private institutions globally. We present outcomes of the largest cohort of patients from the United States undergoing ESG and evaluate these according to obesity class. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients who underwent ESG. Medical information was abstracted from the electronic record with weight records up to 2 years after ESG. Percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months was calculated based on baseline weight at the procedure. SPSS (version 29.0) was used for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1,506 patients from 7 sites were included (501 Class I obesity, 546 Class II, and 459 Class III). Baseline demographics differed according to obesity class due to differences in age, body mass index (BMI), height, sex distribution, and race. As early as 6 months post-ESG, mean BMI for each class dropped to the next lower class and remained there through 2 years. %TWBL achieved in the Class III group was significantly greater when compared with other classes at all time points. At 12 months, 83.2% and 60.9% of patients had ≥10% and ≥15% TBWL for all classes. There were no differences in adverse events between classes. DISCUSSION: Real-world data from a large cohort of patients of all BMI classes across the United States shows significant and sustained weight loss with ESG. ESG is safe to perform in a higher obesity class with acceptable midterm efficacy.

Background Methods: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as “essential” or “important” were included in Barrett’s esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). Results: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. Conclusions: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.