B K Wölnerhanssen1,2, R Peterli2,3, S Hurme4, M Bueter5, M Helmiö6,7, A Juuti8, A C Meyer-Gerspach1,2, M Slawik9, P Peromaa-Haavisto10,11, P Nuutila12,13, P Salminen6,7,14. 1. St Clara Research Ltd, St Clara Hospital, Basle, Switzerland. 2. University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland. 3. Clarunis, Department of Visceral Surgery, University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, St Clara Hospital and University Hospital Basle, Basle, Switzerland. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 5. Department of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland. 6. Department of Digestive Surgery, Division of Digestive Surgery and Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 8. Department of Abdominal Surgery, Abdominal Centre, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 9. Department of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, St. Clara Hospital, Basle, Switzerland. 10. Department of Surgery, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland. 11. Department of Surgery, Hatanpää City Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 12. Department of Endocrinology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 13. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 14. Department of Surgery, Satasairaala Central Hospital, Pori, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are both effective surgical procedures to achieve weight reduction in patients with obesity. The trial objective was to merge individual-patient data from two RCTs to compare outcomes after LSG and LRYGB. METHODS: Five-year outcomes of the Finnish SLEEVEPASS and Swiss SM-BOSS RCTs comparing LSG with LRYGB were analysed. Both original trials were designed to evaluate weight loss. Additional patient-level data on type 2 diabetes (T2DM), obstructive sleep apnoea, and complications were retrieved. The primary outcome was percentage excess BMI loss (%EBMIL). Secondary predefined outcomes in both trials included total weight loss, remission of co-morbidities, improvement in quality of life (QoL), and overall morbidity. RESULTS: At baseline, 228 LSG and 229 LRYGB procedures were performed. Five-year follow-up was available for 199 of 228 patients (87.3 per cent) after LSG and 199 of 229 (87.1 per cent) after LRYGB. Model-based mean estimate of %EBMIL was 7.0 (95 per cent c.i. 3.5 to 10.5) percentage points better after LRYGB than after LSG (62.7 versus 55.5 per cent respectively; P < 0.001). There was no difference in remission of T2DM, obstructive sleep apnoea or QoL improvement; remission for hypertension was better after LRYGB compared with LSG (60.3 versus 44.9 per cent; P = 0.049). The complication rate was higher after LRYGB than LSG (37.2 versus 22.5 per cent; P = 0.001), but there was no difference in mean Comprehensive Complication Index value (30.6 versus 31.0 points; P = 0.859). CONCLUSION: Although LRYGB induced greater weight loss and better amelioration of hypertension than LSG, there was no difference in remission of T2DM, obstructive sleep apnoea, or QoL at 5 years. There were more complications after LRYGB, but the individual burden for patients with complications was similar after both operations.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are both effective surgical procedures to achieve weight reduction in patients with obesity. The trial objective was to merge individual-patient data from two RCTs to compare outcomes after LSG and LRYGB. METHODS: Five-year outcomes of the Finnish SLEEVEPASS and Swiss SM-BOSS RCTs comparing LSG with LRYGB were analysed. Both original trials were designed to evaluate weight loss. Additional patient-level data on type 2 diabetes (T2DM), obstructive sleep apnoea, and complications were retrieved. The primary outcome was percentage excess BMI loss (%EBMIL). Secondary predefined outcomes in both trials included total weight loss, remission of co-morbidities, improvement in quality of life (QoL), and overall morbidity. RESULTS: At baseline, 228 LSG and 229 LRYGB procedures were performed. Five-year follow-up was available for 199 of 228 patients (87.3 per cent) after LSG and 199 of 229 (87.1 per cent) after LRYGB. Model-based mean estimate of %EBMIL was 7.0 (95 per cent c.i. 3.5 to 10.5) percentage points better after LRYGB than after LSG (62.7 versus 55.5 per cent respectively; P < 0.001). There was no difference in remission of T2DM, obstructive sleep apnoea or QoL improvement; remission for hypertension was better after LRYGB compared with LSG (60.3 versus 44.9 per cent; P = 0.049). The complication rate was higher after LRYGB than LSG (37.2 versus 22.5 per cent; P = 0.001), but there was no difference in mean Comprehensive Complication Index value (30.6 versus 31.0 points; P = 0.859). CONCLUSION: Although LRYGB induced greater weight loss and better amelioration of hypertension than LSG, there was no difference in remission of T2DM, obstructive sleep apnoea, or QoL at 5 years. There were more complications after LRYGB, but the individual burden for patients with complications was similar after both operations.
Authors: Douglas Barthold; Elizabeth Brouwer; Lee J Barton; David E Arterburn; Anirban Basu; Anita Courcoulas; Cecelia L Crawford; Peter N Fedorka; Heidi Fischer; Benjamin B Kim; Edward C Mun; Sameer B Murali; Kristi Reynolds; Tae K Yoon; Robert E Zane; Karen J Coleman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Kristina H Lewis; David E Arterburn; Fang Zhang; Katherine Callaway; Jamie Wallace; Adolfo Fernandez; Dennis Ross-Degnan; James F Wharam Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Karen J Coleman; Silvia R Paz; Bhumi B Bhakta; Brianna Taylor; Jialuo Liu; Tae K Yoon; Mayra Macias; David E Arterburn; Cecelia L Crawford; Adam Drewnowksi; Marlaine S Figueroa Gray; Laurel D Hansell; Ming Ji; Kristina H Lewis; Darren D Moore; Sameer B Murali; Deborah R Young Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Hans Jørgen Nielsen; Bjørn Gunnar Nedrebø; Alexander Fosså; John Roger Andersen; Jörg Assmus; Vigdis Halvorsen Dagsland; Simon Nitter Dankel; Oddrun Anita Gudbrandsen; Johan Fernø; Iren Hjellestad; Marianne Jensen Hjermstad; Ronette L Kolotkin; Håvard Luong Thorsen; Gunnar Mellgren; Tone Nygaard Flølo Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 5.551
Authors: Erik Stenberg; Gustaf Bruze; Johan Sundström; Claude Marcus; Ingmar Näslund; Johan Ottosson; Martin Neovius Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01