| Literature DB >> 31803819 |
Gontrand Lopez-Nava1, Ravishankar Asokkumar1,2, Angel Rull1, Fernandez Corbelle1,2,3, Lucia Beltran1, Inmaculada Bautista1,3.
Abstract
Background and study aims It is uncertain if the difference in weight loss outcomes between different endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) is technique-related or multidisciplinary team (MDT) follow-up-related. We hypothesized that at 1 year, the weight loss is determined more by adherence to MDT follow-up than by procedure type. We aimed to compare 1 year weight loss outcomes of four different EBTs at a single center with a standardized MDT follow-up. Patients and methods We prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 962 patients (female-691, 71.2 %; mean age, 44.8 ± 10.6 years, mean BMI, 37.8 ± 5.9 Kg/m 2 ) treated with Intragastric balloons (IGBs) or endoscopic gastroplasty (EG) at HM Sanchinarro University Hospital between March 2012 to January 2017. The procedures were performed by the same endoscopist and followed up by the same MDT. We compared the percentage total body weight loss (%TWBL) at 1 year. We performed linear and logistic regression to identify predictive factors for weight loss and follow-up adherence at 1 year. Results Four hundred and eighty-one IGBs (Orbera-80.9 %; ReShape Duo-19.1 %), and 481 EG (Apollo ESG-51.3 %; Primary obesity surgery endoluminal-POSE-48.6 %) were performed. Only 480 patients (IGB- 45 %; EG- 55 %) completed 1 year follow-up. Among them, Apollo ESG achieved significantly higher TBWL (19.5 ± 13 %, P = 0.035), %TBWL (17.4 ± 10.2 %, P = 0.025), and ≥ 20 % TBWL (36.7 %, P = 0.032). However, in linear regression after adjusting for variables, only higher initial BMI (B = 0.31, P < 0.001) and higher percentage follow-up attendance (B = 0.24, P < 0.001) significantly predicted %TBWL at 1 year in the completion group but not the procedure type (B = 0.02, P = 0.72). In logistic regression, we observed female sex ( P = 0.01), high initial BMI ( P < 0.001), endoscopic gastroplasty ( P = 0.04), and high 1-month %TBWL ( P < 0.001) significantly predicted follow-up completion at 1 year. Conclusions Weight loss at 1 year is dependent on MDT follow-up rather than procedure type. Endoscopic gastroplasty promoted follow-up adherence more than IGBs.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31803819 PMCID: PMC6887647 DOI: 10.1055/a-1007-1769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Summary of data published on each technique.
| Procedure type (ref) | Publication (n) | Patients (n) | %TBWL-12 months (95 % CI) | SAE (%) | SAE needing surgery |
|
Orbera
| 8 | 8506 | 10 % (6.6 – 13.6 %) | 1.5 % | 0.1 % |
|
ReShape Duo
| 1 | 202 | 14.7 % (8.02 – 21.4) | 0.03 % | 16 % |
|
POSE
| 3 | 402 | 10.98 (3.48 – 18.48) | 0.03 % | 0.09 % |
|
ESG
| 9 | 1542 | 16.09 % (14.24 – 17.94) | 1 % | 21 % |
Fig. 1 Endoscopic image of 4 different EBTs. a Orbera IGB. b ReShape Duo IGB. c Apollo endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty. d POSE.
Baseline characteristics of EBTs.
| Variables | Orbera | Reshape Duo | Apollo | POSE |
|
| Age | 42.9 ± 11 | 42.3 ± 12.8 | 45.9 ± 9.6 | 47 ± 10.1 | < 0.001 |
| Sex | 70.2 % | 79.3 % | 70.4 % | 73.1 % | 0.32 |
| Initial BMI | 37.6 ± 6.7 | 38.4 ± 5.2 | 38.3 ± 5.7 | 37.6 ± 4.8 | 0.052 |
| BMI > 40 kg/m 2 | 29.6 % | 33.7 % | 36.4 % | 27.8 % | 0.16 |
EBT, endoscopic bariatric therapy; BMI, body mass index
Fig. 2 Flowchart describing the study population.
Characteristics of study groups.
| Characteristics | Completion Group (n = 480) | Drop-out Group (n = 482) |
|
| Age ± SD, years | 45.3 ± 11.3 | 44.3 ± 10 | 0.04 |
< 45 years | 45 % | 55 % | |
> 45 years | 52 % | 48 % | |
| Gender | 0.01 | ||
Male | 44 % | 56 % | |
Female | 52 % | 48 % | |
| Initial BMI ± SD, kg/m 2 | 38.5 ± 5.8 | 37.2 ± 6 | < 0.001 |
< 40 kg/m 2 | 46 % | 54 % | |
≥ 40 kg/m 2 | 59 % | 41 % | |
| Procedure type | 0.002 | ||
IGB | 217 (45 %) | 264 (54 %) | |
EG | 263 (55 %) | 218 (45 %) |
BMI, body mass index; IGB, intragastric balloon; EG, endoscopic gastroplasty
Weight loss outcomes with different techniques at 1 year.
| Outcomes | Orbera (n = 151) | Reshape Duo (n = 66) | POSE (n = 113) | Apollo (n = 150) |
|
| Mean ± SD TBWL | 18.7 ± 12.6 | 15.3 ± 8 | 16.6 ± 10.6 | 19.5 ± 13 | 0.035 |
| Mean ± SD %TBWL | 16.9 ± 9.3 | 14.4 ± 6.7 | 15.3 ± 8.7 | 17.4 ± 10.2 | 0.025 |
| ≥ 10 % TBWL | 79.5 % | 74.2 % | 71.7 % | 80 % | 0.337 |
| ≥ 20 % TBWL | 35.1 % | 19.7 % | 25.7 % | 36.7 % | 0.032 |
| Mean ± SD %Attendance | 56.3 ± 26.9 | 31.9 ± 23.8 | 25.1 ± 17.7 | 59.3 ± 25.6 | 0.001 |
TBWL, total body weight loss
Weight loss outcomes with different techniques at 6 months.
| Outcomes | Orbera (n = 228) | Reshape Duo (n = 53) | POSE (n = 148) | Apollo (n = 195) |
|
| Mean ± SD TBWL | 17.2 ± 9.8 | 13.5 ± 6 | 15.6 ± 8.3 | 17.7 ± 9.2 | 0.008 |
| Mean ± SD %TBWL | 15.7 ± 7.5 | 12.6 ± 4.9 | 14.5 ± 6.8 | 16.1 ± 7.4 | 0.007 |
| > 10 % TBWL | 82.2 % | 75.6 % | 71.6 % | 83.1 % | 0.135 |
| ≥ 20 % TBWL | 37.2 % | 24.4 % | 24.2 % | 37.7 % | 0.071 |
| Mean ± SD %Attendance | 45.3 ± 26.9 | 37.4 ± 23.5 | 18.5 ± 15.9 | 49.6 ± 27.5 | 0.001 |
TBWL, total body weight loss
Fig. 3 Weight loss outcome based on percentage follow-up attendance at 12 months in the completion group (n = 480). The best weight loss outcome was observed in the high-attendance group.
Fig. 4Weight loss outcome based on %follow-up attendance at 6 months in the completion group (n = 624). The best weight loss outcome was observed in the high-attendance group.
Fig. 5Kaplan-Meier curve indicating cumulative incidence of achieving > 10 %TBWL at time of last contact (dropout) with the MDT team in the IGB and EG groups. Procedure type did not influence weight loss results (0 = 0.83)
Fig. 6Kaplan-Meier curve indicating the cumulative incidence of achieving > 10 %TBWL at time of last contact (dropout) with the MDT team for the four different EBTs.
Logistic regression assessing predictive factors for follow-up completion in 962 patients.
| Covariables | 6-months | 1 year | |||||
| Exp (B) | 95 % CI |
| Exp (B) | 95 % CI |
| ||
| Gender | 1.17 | 0.77 – 1.78 | 0.45 | 1.64 | 1.11 – 2.42 | 0.01 | |
| Age | 0.99 | 0.9 – 1.01 | 0.67 | 1.004 | 0.99 – 1.02 | 0.63 | |
| Initial BMI | 1.04 | 1.01 – 1.77 | 0.01 | 1.82 | 1.25 – 2.64 | < 0.001 | |
| Procedure type | 1.28 | 0.86 – 1.89 | 0.21 | 1.44 | 1.0 – 2.07 | 0.04 | |
| 1-month %weight loss | 1.07 | 1.01 – 1.14 | 0.02 | 1.134 | 1.07 – 1.20 | < 0.001 | |
Variables: Gender (male vs. female); age (continuous); initial BMI (continuous); procedure type (IGB vs. EG) BMI, body mass index; IGB, intragrastric balloon; EG, endoscopic gastroplasty