Salvatore Francesco Vadalà di Prampero1,2, Sonia Solito3, Giacomo Faleschini4, Nikola Panic5,6, Luigi Castriotta7, Alessandro Picci3, Eleonora Pinese3, Rossana Piva8, Milutin Bulajic9,3, Marco Marino3, Piera Rossitti3, Maurizio Zilli3. 1. Mater Olbia Hospital-Qatar Foundation Endowment & Gemelli Foundation, Gastroenterology and GI Endoscopy Unit, Strada Statale 125 Orientale Sarda, 07026, Olbia, OT, Italy. salvatore.vadaladiprampero@materolbia.com. 2. University Hospital of Udine, Gastroenterology and GI Endoscopy Unit, Udine, Italy. salvatore.vadaladiprampero@materolbia.com. 3. University Hospital of Udine, Gastroenterology and GI Endoscopy Unit, Udine, Italy. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Dr Dragisa Misovic-Dedinje, Center for Digestive Endoscopy, Belgrade, Serbia. 6. School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 7. Institute of Hygiene and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Udine, Udine, Italy. 8. University Hospital of Udine, Nutritional Unit, Udine, Italy. 9. Mater Olbia Hospital-Qatar Foundation Endowment & Gemelli Foundation, Gastroenterology and GI Endoscopy Unit, Strada Statale 125 Orientale Sarda, 07026, Olbia, OT, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Patients treated with intragastric balloon (IGB) may benefit from treatment and follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, where the dietician is considered the only essential professional besides the endoscopist. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of dietician support and behavioral therapy in terms of weight loss in patients concomitantly treated with IGB while the device is in situ. METHODS: Patients with IGB in situ, in period 2005-2018, were invited to undergo a dietician check-up (DC) every 1.5 months, accompanied by cognitive behavioral therapy. Considering their attendance at the dietician check-ups (DCs), patients were categorized as non-compliant (0 DC), partially compliant (1-2 DCs), and highly compliant (≥ 3 DCs). A comparison was made among the three groups regarding % of total body weight loss (%TBWL) and ΔBMI at 180 ± 15 days when the IGB was in situ. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three obese patients treated with fluid-filled IGB were included. Body weight data at 180 ± 15 days during the IGB in situ, as well as attendance at the DCs, were available for 170 out of 183 patients. There was no difference among compliant, partially compliant, and non-compliant patients to DCs regarding %TBWL at 180 ± 15 days (p = 0.17). However, non-compliant patients had a higher ΔBMI at 180 ± 15 days in comparison to those compliant or partially compliant to DCs (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Despite its undisputed educational role, attendance at DCs does not seem to correlate with an additional weight loss while the IGB is in situ.
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Patients treated with intragastric balloon (IGB) may benefit from treatment and follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, where the dietician is considered the only essential professional besides the endoscopist. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of dietician support and behavioral therapy in terms of weight loss in patients concomitantly treated with IGB while the device is in situ. METHODS:Patients with IGB in situ, in period 2005-2018, were invited to undergo a dietician check-up (DC) every 1.5 months, accompanied by cognitive behavioral therapy. Considering their attendance at the dietician check-ups (DCs), patients were categorized as non-compliant (0 DC), partially compliant (1-2 DCs), and highly compliant (≥ 3 DCs). A comparison was made among the three groups regarding % of total body weight loss (%TBWL) and ΔBMI at 180 ± 15 days when the IGB was in situ. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three obesepatients treated with fluid-filled IGB were included. Body weight data at 180 ± 15 days during the IGB in situ, as well as attendance at the DCs, were available for 170 out of 183 patients. There was no difference among compliant, partially compliant, and non-compliant patients to DCs regarding %TBWL at 180 ± 15 days (p = 0.17). However, non-compliant patients had a higher ΔBMI at 180 ± 15 days in comparison to those compliant or partially compliant to DCs (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Despite its undisputed educational role, attendance at DCs does not seem to correlate with an additional weight loss while the IGB is in situ.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dietician support; Intragastric Balloon; Weight loss
Authors: Maria Luisa De Castro; María José Morales; Víctor Del Campo; Juan R Pineda; Eduardo Pena; José M Sierra; María José Arbones; Ignacio R Prada Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Nitin Kumar; Steven A Edmundowicz; Sreenivasa Jonnalagadda; Michael Larsen; Shelby Sullivan; Christopher C Thompson; Subhas Banerjee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 9.427