OBJECTIVE: To identify factors contributing to the variation in weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of patients with good (excess body mass index lost (EBL) >60%) and poor weight loss response (EBL <50%) >12 months after RYGB and a lean control group matched for age and gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with good weight loss response, 17 patients with poor weight loss response, and eight control subjects were included in the study. Participants underwent dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scan, indirect calorimetry and a 9 h multiple-meal test with measurements of glucose, insulin, total bile acids (TBA), glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, peptide YY3-36 (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), ghrelin, neurotensin and pancreatic polypeptide (PP) as well as assessment of early dumping and appetite. RESULTS: Suppression of hunger was more pronounced in the good than the poor responders in response to the multiple-meal test (P=0.006). In addition, the good responders had a larger release of GLP-1 (P=0.009) and a greater suppression of ghrelin (P=0.037) during the test, whereas the postprandial secretion of CCK was highest in the poor responders (P=0.005). PYY, neurotensin, PP and TBA release did not differ between the RYGB-operated groups. Compared with control subjects, patients had exaggerated release of GLP-1 (P<0.001), PYY (P=0.008), CCK (P=0.010) and neurotensin (P<0.001). Early dumping was comparable in the good and poor responders, but more pronounced than in controlled subjects. Differences in resting energy expenditure between the three groups were entirely explained by differences in body composition. CONCLUSION: Favorable meal-induced changes in hunger and gut hormone release in patients with good compared with poor weight loss response support the role of gut hormones in the weight loss after RYGB.
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors contributing to the variation in weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of patients with good (excess body mass index lost (EBL) >60%) and poor weight loss response (EBL <50%) >12 months after RYGB and a lean control group matched for age and gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with good weight loss response, 17 patients with poor weight loss response, and eight control subjects were included in the study. Participants underwent dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scan, indirect calorimetry and a 9 h multiple-meal test with measurements of glucose, insulin, total bile acids (TBA), glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, peptide YY3-36 (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), ghrelin, neurotensin and pancreatic polypeptide (PP) as well as assessment of early dumping and appetite. RESULTS: Suppression of hunger was more pronounced in the good than the poor responders in response to the multiple-meal test (P=0.006). In addition, the good responders had a larger release of GLP-1 (P=0.009) and a greater suppression of ghrelin (P=0.037) during the test, whereas the postprandial secretion of CCK was highest in the poor responders (P=0.005). PYY, neurotensin, PP and TBA release did not differ between the RYGB-operated groups. Compared with control subjects, patients had exaggerated release of GLP-1 (P<0.001), PYY (P=0.008), CCK (P=0.010) and neurotensin (P<0.001). Early dumping was comparable in the good and poor responders, but more pronounced than in controlled subjects. Differences in resting energy expenditure between the three groups were entirely explained by differences in body composition. CONCLUSION: Favorable meal-induced changes in hunger and gut hormone release in patients with good compared with poor weight loss response support the role of gut hormones in the weight loss after RYGB.
Authors: M S Svane; N B Jørgensen; K N Bojsen-Møller; C Dirksen; S Nielsen; V B Kristiansen; S Toräng; N J Wewer Albrechtsen; J F Rehfeld; B Hartmann; S Madsbad; J J Holst Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Cecilia Ratner; Zhenyan He; Kaare V Grunddal; Louise J Skov; Bolette Hartmann; Fa Zhang; Annette Feuchtinger; Anette Bjerregaard; Christina Christoffersen; Matthias H Tschöp; Brian Finan; Richard D DiMarchi; Gina M Leinninger; Kevin W Williams; Christoffer Clemmensen; Birgitte Holst Journal: Diabetes Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Eric S Wise; Kyle M Hocking; Adam Weltz; Anna Uebele; Jose J Diaz; Stephen M Kavic; Mark D Kligman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Robyn A Tamboli; Reem M Sidani; Anna E Garcia; Joseph Antoun; James M Isbell; Vance L Albaugh; Naji N Abumrad Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 4.310