Lucy Davenport1, Yazmin Johari1,2, Alexandria Klejn1, Cheryl Laurie1, Andrew Smith2, Geraldine J Ooi1,2, Paul R Burton1,2, Wendy A Brown3,4. 1. Monash University Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Level 6, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia. 2. Department of General Surgery, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Monash University Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Level 6, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia. Wendy.Brown@med.monash.edu.au. 4. Department of General Surgery, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. Wendy.Brown@med.monash.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Preoperative very low energy diets (VLEDs) improve access during bariatric surgery. Compliance with traditional VLED is variable, mainly due to gastrointestinal side effects. Formulite™ is a new formulation of VLED, with higher protein, soluble fibre and probiotics. AIMS: To compare traditional VLED (Optifast™) with the new VLED (Formulite™) and assess compliance, weight loss, satisfaction, side effects and surgical access. METHODS: This was a randomised double-blinded study involving patients scheduled for bariatric surgery. The primary outcome was compliance, assessed by urinary ketone concentration and proportion of patients in ketosis at 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes were weight loss, satisfaction and patient reported outcomes, gastrointestinal side effects and operative conditions. RESULTS: There were 69 participants: 35 in the Formulite™ group and 34 in the Optifast™ group. Ketosis at 2 weeks was achieved in both groups (88.5% vs 83.3%, Formulite™ vs. Optifast™, p = 0.602). Urinary ketones were higher with Formulite™ (1.5 vs 15 mmol/L, p = 0.030). Total body weight loss percentage, hunger and operative conditions were similar in both groups. Formulite™ produced less flatulence (score 3 vs 2, p = 0.010) and emotional eating (score 2 vs 1, p = 0.037); however, Optifast™ ranked higher in terms of taste (score 4 vs 3, p = 0.001) and overall satisfaction (score 5 vs 7, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance over 2 weeks was high in both VLEDs with most subjects achieving ketosis. Overall satisfaction was moderately high, although variable. Whilst Formulite™ is a viable alternative to Optifast™, better formulations of VLED that addresses key adverse effects, whilst achieving ketosis, would be of significant value.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Preoperative very low energy diets (VLEDs) improve access during bariatric surgery. Compliance with traditional VLED is variable, mainly due to gastrointestinal side effects. Formulite™ is a new formulation of VLED, with higher protein, soluble fibre and probiotics. AIMS: To compare traditional VLED (Optifast™) with the new VLED (Formulite™) and assess compliance, weight loss, satisfaction, side effects and surgical access. METHODS: This was a randomised double-blinded study involving patients scheduled for bariatric surgery. The primary outcome was compliance, assessed by urinary ketone concentration and proportion of patients in ketosis at 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes were weight loss, satisfaction and patient reported outcomes, gastrointestinal side effects and operative conditions. RESULTS: There were 69 participants: 35 in the Formulite™ group and 34 in the Optifast™ group. Ketosis at 2 weeks was achieved in both groups (88.5% vs 83.3%, Formulite™ vs. Optifast™, p = 0.602). Urinary ketones were higher with Formulite™ (1.5 vs 15 mmol/L, p = 0.030). Total body weight loss percentage, hunger and operative conditions were similar in both groups. Formulite™ produced less flatulence (score 3 vs 2, p = 0.010) and emotional eating (score 2 vs 1, p = 0.037); however, Optifast™ ranked higher in terms of taste (score 4 vs 3, p = 0.001) and overall satisfaction (score 5 vs 7, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance over 2 weeks was high in both VLEDs with most subjects achieving ketosis. Overall satisfaction was moderately high, although variable. Whilst Formulite™ is a viable alternative to Optifast™, better formulations of VLED that addresses key adverse effects, whilst achieving ketosis, would be of significant value.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric surgery; Compliance; Very low energy diet
Authors: David Edholm; Joel Kullberg; Arvo Haenni; F Anders Karlsson; Anders Ahlström; Jakob Hedberg; Håkan Ahlström; Magnus Sundbom Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Mark C Lewis; Madeleine L Phillips; John P Slavotinek; Lilian Kow; Campbell H Thompson; Jim Toouli Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Yves Van Nieuwenhove; Zilvinas Dambrauskas; Alvaro Campillo-Soto; Francois van Dielen; René Wiezer; Ignace Janssen; Michael Kramer; Anders Thorell Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-11
Authors: Ramzi S Alami; John M Morton; Rob Schuster; Jie Lie; Barry R Sanchez; Anna Peters; Myriam J Curet Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Paul Moayyedi; Eamonn M M Quigley; Brian E Lacy; Anthony J Lembo; Yuri A Saito; Lawrence R Schiller; Edy E Soffer; Brennan M R Spiegel; Alexander C Ford Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Thomas Meinert Larsen; Stine-Mathilde Dalskov; Marleen van Baak; Susan A Jebb; Angeliki Papadaki; Andreas F H Pfeiffer; J Alfredo Martinez; Teodora Handjieva-Darlenska; Marie Kunešová; Mats Pihlsgård; Steen Stender; Claus Holst; Wim H M Saris; Arne Astrup Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N Santesso; E A Akl; M Bianchi; A Mente; R Mustafa; D Heels-Ansdell; H J Schünemann Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: William De Nardo; Paula M Miotto; Jacqueline Bayliss; Shuai Nie; Stacey N Keenan; Magdalene K Montgomery; Matthew J Watt Journal: Mol Metab Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 8.568