J Ling1, H Tang1, H Meng2, L Wu3, L Zhu4, S Zhu5. 1. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, The China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Metabolic Surgery, The Jinshazhou Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, China. zly8128@csu.edu.cn. 5. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Rd, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, China. shaihongzhu@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been widely reported to be safe and feasible, and has a powerful effect on improving metabolism and weight loss in patients with a high body mass index (BMI). A few studies have focused on the comparison of RYGB with medical treatment in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with a lower BMI. OBJECTIVES: To compare the metabolic effects and safety of RYGB versus medical treatment during a 2 years follow-up in T2D patients with a BMI of 25 to 32.5 kg/m2. METHODS: This retrospective and multicenter cohort study participants were extracted from the T2D patients with a lower BMI (25-32.5 kg/m2) from three bariatric centers between 2009 and 2018. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize bias, and each patient in the surgical group was matched 1:2 to the patients in the medical group with the closest propensity score. Finally, 71 patients who received RYGB and 142 patients who underwent medical treatment with a 2 years follow-up were enrolled to compare the effects of RYGB and medical treatment. The primary endpoint was achievement of the triple endpoint (the simultaneous achievement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7.0%, fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 130 mmHg at the year-1 visit). Changes in weight, BMI, medication usage, complications, and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 213 patients (mean age of 47.4 ± 9.5 years, 70.4% male, mean BMI of 28.6 ± 2.2 kg/m2) were included in this study. At the end of the first year, 17 patients (23.9%) in the surgical group and 10 (7.0%) in the medical group had achieved the composite triple endpoint (OR 4.64; 95% CI 1.82-11.81; p = 0.001). Additionally, 43 patients (60.6%) in the surgical group and 11 patients (19.7%) in the medical group experienced remission of T2D. However, more complications were observed in the surgical group (36 vs. 22, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among T2D patients with a BMI between 25.0 and 32.5 kg/m2, RYGB was more effective than medical treatment in resolving metabolic disorders and also resulted in more complications. The risk for complications should be considered in the clinical decision-making process for T2D patients with a low BMI.
BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been widely reported to be safe and feasible, and has a powerful effect on improving metabolism and weight loss in patients with a high body mass index (BMI). A few studies have focused on the comparison of RYGB with medical treatment in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with a lower BMI. OBJECTIVES: To compare the metabolic effects and safety of RYGB versus medical treatment during a 2 years follow-up in T2D patients with a BMI of 25 to 32.5 kg/m2. METHODS: This retrospective and multicenter cohort study participants were extracted from the T2D patients with a lower BMI (25-32.5 kg/m2) from three bariatric centers between 2009 and 2018. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize bias, and each patient in the surgical group was matched 1:2 to the patients in the medical group with the closest propensity score. Finally, 71 patients who received RYGB and 142 patients who underwent medical treatment with a 2 years follow-up were enrolled to compare the effects of RYGB and medical treatment. The primary endpoint was achievement of the triple endpoint (the simultaneous achievement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7.0%, fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 130 mmHg at the year-1 visit). Changes in weight, BMI, medication usage, complications, and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 213 patients (mean age of 47.4 ± 9.5 years, 70.4% male, mean BMI of 28.6 ± 2.2 kg/m2) were included in this study. At the end of the first year, 17 patients (23.9%) in the surgical group and 10 (7.0%) in the medical group had achieved the composite triple endpoint (OR 4.64; 95% CI 1.82-11.81; p = 0.001). Additionally, 43 patients (60.6%) in the surgical group and 11 patients (19.7%) in the medical group experienced remission of T2D. However, more complications were observed in the surgical group (36 vs. 22, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among T2D patients with a BMI between 25.0 and 32.5 kg/m2, RYGB was more effective than medical treatment in resolving metabolic disorders and also resulted in more complications. The risk for complications should be considered in the clinical decision-making process for T2D patients with a low BMI.
Authors: Geltrude Mingrone; Simona Panunzi; Andrea De Gaetano; Caterina Guidone; Amerigo Iaconelli; Laura Leccesi; Giuseppe Nanni; Alfons Pomp; Marco Castagneto; Giovanni Ghirlanda; Francesco Rubino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip R Schauer; Deepak L Bhatt; John P Kirwan; Kathy Wolski; Ali Aminian; Stacy A Brethauer; Sankar D Navaneethan; Rishi P Singh; Claire E Pothier; Steven E Nissen; Sangeeta R Kashyap Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David P Fisher; Eric Johnson; Sebastien Haneuse; David Arterburn; Karen J Coleman; Patrick J O'Connor; Rebecca O'Brien; Andy Bogart; Mary Kay Theis; Jane Anau; Emily B Schroeder; Stephen Sidney Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Sonya Haw; Karla I Galaviz; Audrey N Straus; Alysse J Kowalski; Matthew J Magee; Mary Beth Weber; Jingkai Wei; K M Venkat Narayan; Mohammed K Ali Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Geltrude Mingrone; Simona Panunzi; Andrea De Gaetano; Caterina Guidone; Amerigo Iaconelli; Giuseppe Nanni; Marco Castagneto; Stefan Bornstein; Francesco Rubino Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: W J Pories; M S Swanson; K G MacDonald; S B Long; P G Morris; B M Brown; H A Barakat; R A deRamon; G Israel; J M Dolezal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sayeed Ikramuddin; Judith Korner; Wei-Jei Lee; John P Bantle; Avis J Thomas; John E Connett; Daniel B Leslie; William B Inabnet; Qi Wang; Robert W Jeffery; Keong Chong; Lee-Ming Chuang; Michael D Jensen; Adrian Vella; Leaque Ahmed; Kumar Belani; Amy E Olofson; Heather A Bainbridge; Charles J Billington Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lorna E Thorpe; Ushma D Upadhyay; Shadi Chamany; Renu Garg; Jenna Mandel-Ricci; Scott Kellerman; Diana K Berger; Thomas R Frieden; Charon Gwynn Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 17.152