| Literature DB >> 32731443 |
Ariana Picu1,2, Laura Petcu1,2, Diana Simona Ştefan1, Grațiela Grădișteanu Pîrcălăbioru2,3, Manuela Mitu1, Daiana Bajko1, Daniela Lixandru4, Cristian Guja1,5, Octavian Savu1,6, Anca Pantea Stoian5, Alina Constantin7, Bogdan Smeu8, Cătălin Copăescu8, Mariana Carmen Chifiriuc2,3, Elena Ionica2, Constantin Ionescu-Tîrgovişte1,9.
Abstract
Geography is one of the key drivers of the significant variation in the etiopathogenic profile and prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity, therefore geographically based data are fundamental for implementing the appropriate interventions. Presently, the selection criteria of T2DM and obesity patients for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) have not reached a worldwide consensus-highlighting the need for sharing experts' guidance in the preoperative evaluation, choice of the interventional procedure, perioperative management and patient long-term care. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of LSG on T2DM (T2DM) remission in Romanian obese male patients, based on a multiparametric, prospective investigation. We have conducted a randomized controlled study on 41 obese male participants with the body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2, aged 30-65 years, which were randomly divided in two study groups: one receiving conventional treatment and the second undergoing LSG. The clinical and anthropometrical parameters, resting metabolic rate, general biochemical status, adipocytes profile, gastrointestinal hormones levels, proinflammatory, oxidant and antioxidant profiles were determined at three time points: V1 (baseline), V2 (after six months) and V3 (after 12 months). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood glucose levels, BMI, weight, visceral fat level, HDL-cholesterol, incretin hormones, proinflammatory and the oxidative stress status were significantly improved in the LSG versus conventional treatment group. This is the first study reporting on the evaluation of metabolic surgery impact on Romanian obese male patients with T2DM. Our results confirm that LSG could contribute to T2DM remission in patients with diabesity, but this beneficial effect seems to be critically influenced by the duration of T2DM rather than by the obesity status. Our results show that, in addition to the parameters included in the prediction algorithm, the proinsulin levels, proinsulin/insulin ratio and the visceral fat percentage could bring added value to the assessment of metabolic status.Entities:
Keywords: T2DM; conventional antidiabetic oral therapy; diet; incretin hormones; laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; obesity; oxidative stress; proinflammatory state
Year: 2020 PMID: 32731443 PMCID: PMC7464585 DOI: 10.3390/metabo10080308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
Comparison of the hormonal levels determined at V1, V2 and V3 for the conventional treatment (CTG) versus LSG group; 2 way-ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc (data shown as median with IQR, p-value shows interaction effect, significant results are marked with *, ** or *** and show the significant differences observed at V2 and V3 compared to V1, if not marked, results are not statistically significant).
| Hormones | CTG | LSG | CTG | LSG | CTG | LSG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | V1 | V2 | V2 | V3 | V3 | ||
|
| 22.12 (23.41) | 18.92 (24.35) | 17.43 (12.71) | 6.67 (5.68) | 14.13 (31.83) | 5.08 (4.17) | 0.5055 |
|
| 8.12 (14.02) | 8.44 (10.56) | 7.35 (5.70) | 1.68 (1.70) | 6.32 (11.93) | 1.19 (0.80) | 0.1128 |
|
| 90.68 (52.24) | 60.16 (84.72) | 86.76 (131.14) | 72.03 (97.63) | 67.54 (146.79) | 61.25 (49.27) | 0.7021 |
|
| 6.42 (19.76) | 5.86 (6.59) | 4.84 (6.60) | 0.87 (0.71) | 3.06 (5.31) | 0.70 (0.87) | 0.5946 |
|
| 0.44 (0.59) | 0.32 (0.29) | 0.21 (0.73) | 0.12 (0.12) | 0.19 (0.15) | 0.12 (0.18) | 0.9399 |
|
| 9.82 (2.53) | 9.72 (1.33) | 7.66 (2.10) | 7.39 (2.09) | 14.13 (31.83) | 4.19 (1.70) |
|
|
| 15.50 (7.66) | 8.45 (6.39) | 10.16 (12.78) | 2.62 (1.29) | 8.62 (7.45) | 2.65 (0.79) |
|
|
| 4.82 (9.28) | 2.09 (1.09) | 3.98 (6.50) | 3.63 (5.58) | 3.52 (2.61) | 7.53 (7.42) | 0.0082 |
|
| 47.13 | 47.40 | 50.54 | 16.12 | – | – | |
|
| 100.47 | 117.40 | 136.75 | 94.42 | 140.48 | 84.82 |
|
Comparison of proinflammatory markers levels after 6 and 12 months of treatment for both groups.
| Proinflammatory | CTG (Control Group) |
| LSG (Laparoscopic Gastric Sleeve Group) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V2 | V3 | V2 | V3 | |||
|
|
| 11.51 (9.04) |
| 3.34 (6.26) | 11.51 (11.47) |
|
|
| 0.73 (1.12) | 3.27 (3.56) |
| 0.65 (0.90) | 2.90 (3.33) |
|
|
| 1.94 (0.95) | 1.94 (1.53) |
| 1.96 (0.88) | 2.36 (0.71) |
|
|
| 6.34 (6.21) | 12.33 (9.35) |
| 9.47 (4.85) | 1.31 (2.48) |
|
* median and IQR (in brackets); 1 Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Oxidative stress markers in diabetic patients at baseline (V1) and after 6 months (V2).
| Oxidative Stress | Baseline | 6 Months | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTG | LSG | CTG | LSG | ||
|
| 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.04 |
|
|
| 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 |
|
|
| 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.33 ± 0.09 | 0.23 ± 0.06 * | 0.37 ± 0.00 |
|
|
| 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 |
|
|
| 0.27 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 0.23 ± 0.00 ** |
|
|
| 10.31 ± 0.54 | 13.10 ± 2.14 | 10.15 ± 1.82 | 12.04 ± 0.70 |
|
RB—respiratory burst; PMA—phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate; ZO—opsonized zymosan; LM—luminol; LG—lucigenin; GSH—glutathione—8-OH-2dG—8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine; maximum—the maximal peak value; RLU—relative chemiluminescence units. Data expressed as mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean). The p-value refers to the comparison between CTG and LSG after 6 months; * and ** denote p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 when comparing 6 months to baseline within each group; ns = not significant.
Levels of antioxidants markers in erythrocytes obtained from the patients included in the study.
| Antioxidant | V1 | V2 | V3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTG | LSG | CTG | LSG | CTG | LSG | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
|
| 8.33 ± 0.49 | 6.26 ± 0.5 | 14.18 ± 0.96 ** | 8.80 ± 0.1* | 6.16 ± 0.6 *,$$ | 8.32 ± 0.12 $ |
|
| 605.02 ± 14.6 | 626.47 ± 14 | 665.58 ± 35.9 | 586.16 ± 40.5 | 465.52 ± 38.7 *,$$ | 515.41 ± 28.05 |
|
| 9.28 ± 0.46 | 9.96 ± 0.56 | 14.77 ± 1.8 * | 15.50 ± 1.48 * | 13.80 ± 0.8* | 19.95 ± 1.22 $ |
|
| 2.15 ± 0.04 | 2.34 ± 0.06 | 2.26 ± 0.09 | 2.31 ± 0.05 | 2.04 ± 0.06 | 2.45 ± 0.08 |
|
| 73.54 ± 2.5 | 73.94 ± 2.8 | 75.94 ± 1.7 | 73.94 ± 2.8 | 74.34 ± 2.2 | 71.92 ± 1.88 |
GPx—glutathione peroxidase, SOD—superoxide dismutase, CAT—catalase, PON1dh—paraoxonase1, * and ** represent p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively, initially comparing 6 or 12 months for each group; $ and $$ represents p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 comparing 6 and 12 months between groups (CTG and LSG).