| Literature DB >> 34025579 |
Emanuela Bianciardi1, Giulia Raimondi2, Tonia Samela2, Marco Innamorati2, Lorenzo Maria Contini1, Leonardo Procenesi1, Mariantonietta Fabbricatore2, Claudio Imperatori2, Paolo Gentileschi3.
Abstract
Twenty to thirty percent of patients experience weight regain at mid and long-term follow-up. Impaired cognitive functions are prevalent in people suffering from obesity and in those with binge eating disorder, thereby, affecting the weight-loss outcomes. The aim of our study was to investigate neurocognitive and psychopathological predictors of surgical efficacy in terms of percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at follow-up intervals of one year and 4-year. Psychosocial evaluation was completed in a sample of 78 bariatric surgery candidates and included psychometric instruments and a cognitive battery of neuropsychological tests. A schedule of 1-year and 4-year follow-ups was implemented. Wisconsin Sorting Card Test total correct responses, scores on the Raven's Progressive Matrices Test, and age predicted %EWL at, both, early and long-term periods after surgery while the severity of pre-operative binge eating (BED) symptoms were associated with lower %EWL only four years after the operation. Due to the role of pre-operative BED in weight loss maintenance, the affected patients are at risk of suboptimal response requiring ongoing clinical monitoring, and psychological and pharmacological interventions when needed. As a result of our findings and in keeping with the latest guidelines we encourage neuropsychological assessment of bariatric surgery candidates. This data substantiated the rationale of providing rehabilitative interventions tailored to cognitive domains and time specific to the goal of supporting patients in their post-surgical course.Entities:
Keywords: bariatric surgery; bariatric surgery psychosocial evaluation; binge eating disorder; cognitive impairment; executive function; obesity; psychopathology
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34025579 PMCID: PMC8131828 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.662252
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Descriptive statistics of the sample (N=78).
| Variables | Count/M | %/(SD) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 44.85 | (11.23) |
|
| ||
| Men | 19 | 24.6 |
| Women | 59 | 75.6 |
|
| 35 | 44.9 |
|
| 43.15 | (6.01) |
| Obesity class I (30 Kg/m2 ≤ BMI ≤ 34.99 Kg/m2) N/% | 8 | 10.3 |
| Obesity class II (35 Kg/m2 ≤ BMI ≤ 39.99 Kg/m2) N/% | 20 | 25.6 |
| Obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40 Kg/m2) N/% | 50 | 64.1 |
|
| 58.13 | (27.16) |
|
| 54.83 | (27.11) |
|
| 13.09 | (10.62) |
| BES ≤ 17 N/% | 59 | 75.6 |
| 18 ≤ BES ≤ 26 N/% | 11 | 14.3 |
| BES ≥ 27 N/% | 8 | 10.1 |
|
| 1.12 | (0.10) |
M, Mean; SD, Standard Deviation; %, Percentage; BMI, Body Mass Index; %EWL I, percentage of excess weight loss at the first follow-up; %EWL II, percentage of excess weight loss at the second follow-up; BES, Binge Eating Scale; SCL GSI, Symptom Checklist-90 Revised - Global Severity Index.
Associations between %EWL at I and II follow-up, socio-demographic and clinical variables (N=78).
| %EWL I | %EWL II | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| -0.03 (-0.03) | -0.03 (-0.03) |
|
| -0.08 | -0.12 |
|
| 0.13 (0.12) | 0.18 (0.17) |
|
| 0.09 (-0.08) | -0.20 (-0.20) |
|
| 0.08 (0.05) | 0.09 (0.03) |
*p<0.05; **p<0.001; Bold values indicate significant variable.
Between parentheses partial correlation values when controlling for sex.
%EWL I, percentage of excess weight loss at the first follow-up; %EWL II, percentage of excess weight loss at the second follow-up; BMI, Body Mass Index; BES, Binge Eating Scale; SCL-GSI, Symptom Checklist-90 Revised - Global Severity Index.
Associations between %EWL at I and II follow-up and cognitive variables (N=78).
| %EWL I | %EWL II | |
|---|---|---|
|
| -0.05 (-0.09) | -0.05 (-0.12) |
|
| 0.05 (0.04) | 0.05 (0.02) |
|
| 0.18 (0.17) | 0.09 (0.07) |
|
| 0.07 (0.08) | 0.01 (-0.01) |
|
| 0.11 (0.09) | 0.19 (0.18) |
|
| 0.02 (0.00) | 0.02 (-0.01) |
|
| 0.03 (-0.00) | 0.01 (-0.02) |
|
| 0.07 (0.13) | 0.11 (0.10) |
|
| 0.10 (0.13) | 0.11 (0.14) |
|
|
| 0.22 |
|
| -0.06 (-0.05) | -0.04 (-0.03) |
|
| 0.04 (0.08) | -0.03 (0.00) |
|
| -0.15 (-0.15) | -0.15 (-0.14) |
|
|
| -0.22 (-0.21) |
|
| -0.11 (-0.09) | -0.10 (-0.08) |
|
| 0.18 (0.06) | -0.07 (-0.02) |
|
|
| 0.21 (0.15) |
|
| 0.09 (0.06) | 0.09 (0.02) |
|
| 0.13 (0.09) | 0.09 (0.02) |
|
| 0.11 (0.08) | 0.09 (0.02) |
|
| 0.10 (0.07) | 0.11 (0.05) |
|
| 0.14 (0.12) | 0.10 (0.04) |
*p<0.05; Bold values indicate significant variables.
Between parentheses partial correlation values when controlling for sex.
%EWL I, percentage of excess weight loss at the first follow up; %EWL II, percentage of excess weight loss at the second follow up; Rey-T0, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test at time 0; Rey-T15, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test after 15 minutes; Phonemic VF, Phonological Verbal Fluency; Semantic VF, Semantic Verbal Fluency; TMT-A, Trail Making Test part A; TMT-B, Trail Making Test part B; TMT B-A, Trail Making Test time ratio between part B and A; DS, Digit Span; SPM-S, Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices education corrected; SPM-E, Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices age corrected; CPT, Continuous Performance Test; CPT Hit, Continuous Performance Test Reaction Time; CPT-SD, Continuous Performance Test Standard Error; CPT Perseveration, Continuous Performance Test Perseverative responses; WCST, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test total score; WCST Er, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test total error; WCST Perseveration, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Perseverative responses; WCST-P Er, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Perseverative Error responses; WCST Non-P Er, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Non Perseverative Error responses; WCST-cc; Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Correct Categories completed.
Hierarchical linear regression analysis predicting the percentage of excess weight loss at the first follow-up (N=78).
| Dependent Variable: %EWL I |
|
| [95% CI] | Adjusted |
| Significance |
|
| Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.11 | Df3;69 = 4.186 | p < 0.01 | 0.15 | 4.186 | p < 0.01 | |||
|
| 0.23 | 0.05 | [-0.001; 0.947] | ||||||
|
| -0.09 | 0.44 | [-0.528; 0.234] | ||||||
|
|
|
| [0.075; 1.248] | ||||||
|
| 0.23 | Df8;64 = 3.652 | p < 0.01 | 0.16 | 2.972 | p < 0.05 | |||
|
|
|
| [0.225; 1.141] | ||||||
|
| 0.005 | 0.96 | [-0.392; 0.408] | ||||||
|
|
|
| [0.229; 1.378] | ||||||
|
|
|
| [-1.397; -0.175] | ||||||
|
| 0.05 | 0.60 | [-10.370; 17.648] | ||||||
|
| -0.19 | 0.09 | [-3.386; 0.284] | ||||||
|
| 0.17 | 0.12 | [-0.220; 1.765] | ||||||
|
| -0.21 | 0.06 | [-1.132; 0.022] |
Bold values indicate significant variable. %EWL I, percentage of excess weight loss at the first follow-up; SPM-E, Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices age corrected; CPT-SD, Continuous Performance Test Standard Error; WCST, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test total score; BMI, Body Mass Index; BES, Binge Eating Scale.
Hierarchical linear regression analysis predicting the percentage of excess weight loss at the second follow up (N=78).
| Dependent Variable: %EWL II |
|
| [95% CI] | Adjusted |
| Significance |
|
| Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.07 | Df3;69 = 2.925 | p < 0.05 | 0.11 | 2.925 | p < 0.05 | |||
|
| 0.22 | 0.06 | [-0.024; 0.922] | ||||||
|
| -0.12 | 0.32 | [-0.569; 0.191] | ||||||
|
| 0.15 | 0.20 | [-0.211; 0.959] | ||||||
|
| 0.30 | Df8;64 = 4.866 | p < 0.001 | 0.26 | 5.463 | p < 0.001 | |||
|
|
|
| [0.294; 1.154] | ||||||
|
| 0.02 | 0.86 | [-0.342; 0.406] | ||||||
|
|
|
| [0.033; 1.122] | ||||||
|
|
|
| [-1.550; -0.417] | ||||||
|
| 0.02 | 0.80 | [-11.402; 14.571] | ||||||
|
| -0.21 | 0.05 | [-3.356; 0.046] | ||||||
|
| 0.20 | 0.05 | [-0.034; 1.806] | ||||||
|
|
|
| [-1.288; -0.219] |
Bold values indicate significant variable. %EWL II, percentage of excess weight loss at the first follow up; SPM-E, Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices age corrected; CPT-SD, Continuous Performance Test Standard Error; WCST, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test total score; BMI, Body Mass Index; BES, Binge Eating Scale.