Bariatric and Metabolic Endoscopy: A New Paradigm

Telese, Andrea; Sehgal, Vinay; Magee, Craig; Naik, Shivani; Alqahtani, Saleh A.; Lovat, Laurence

doi:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000364

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 23 24 ] Several randomized and non-randomized studies have shown the benefits of EIBT in terms of weight reduction in obese patients. [ 18 19 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ] In contrast, other studies concluded that EIBT did not seem to be an effective method for achieving weight loss. [ 35 36 37 38 ] The disappointing results of some of these initial reports may indicate a flaw in the technique, poor choice of patients, or lack of dietician follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of safety and efficacy of intragastric botulinum toxin-A versus gastric balloon

Tayyem

Qandeel

Al-Balas

et al. 2022

Saudi J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A prospective case-matched study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic intragastric botulinum toxin-A (EIBT) versus endoscopically planned gastric balloon (EPGB), as a treatment for obesity. Methods: A total of 176 patients (matched for age and sex) were equally divided to undergo EIBT ( n = 88) or EPGB ( n = 88). Patients who received EIBT were restricted to a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 35 kg/m 2 , whereas a BMI >25 kg/m 2 was allowed in the EPGB group. The main measured outcomes were weight loss, procedure duration, complications, early satiety, and quality of life (QoL). Results: The patients were followed up for a mean of 6 months. The mean weight loss was greater in the EPGB group than in the EIBT group (15.6 kg vs. 9.3 kg, P < 0.001). However, the percentage excess weight loss and the satiety score were greater in the EIBT group (59.1% vs. 42.2%, P < 0.001; and 3.5 vs. 2.3, P < 0.001) respectively. The procedure duration was shorter for EIBT patients (10 min vs. 15 min, P < 0.001). The postoperative complication rate recorded in the EPGB group was significantly higher (30% vs. 9%, P = 0.001). Adverse symptoms lasted longer in EPGB (5.2 days vs. 0.7 days, P < 0.001). Both groups enjoyed similar improvements in QoL. Conclusion: EIBT is a safe and effective treatment for mild obesity. Although the weight loss was greater in the EPGB group, the percentage excess weight loss, procedure duration, postoperative complications, and symptom duration were significantly better in the EIBT group. QoL improvement was comparable between the two groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of safety and efficacy of intragastric botulinum toxin-A versus gastric balloon

Tayyem

Qandeel

Al-Balas

et al. 2022

Saudi J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The intragastric balloon, duodenal mucosal resurfacing, and bariatric surgeries are among them. These procedures are indicated according to the degree of obesity, comorbidities, and the therapeutic effect sought [ 41 , 42 ].…”

Section: Obesity: Epidemiology Diagnosis and Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obesity and Nutrigenetics Testing: New Insights

Duarte,

Leite-Lais,

Agnez-Lima

et al. 2024

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Obesity results from interactions between environmental factors, lifestyle, and genetics. In this scenario, nutritional genomics and nutrigenetic tests stand out, with the promise of helping patients avoid or treat obesity. This narrative review investigates whether nutrigenetic tests may help to prevent or treat obesity. Scientific studies in PubMed Science Direct were reviewed, focusing on using nutrigenetic tests in obesity. The work showed that few studies address the use of tools in obesity. However, most of the studies listed reported their beneficial effects in weight loss. Ethical conflicts were also discussed, as in most countries, there are no regulations to standardize these tools, and there needs to be more scientific knowledge for health professionals who interpret them. International Societies, such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome, do not recommend nutrigenetic tests to prevent or treat obesity, especially in isolation. Advancing nutrigenetics depends on strengthening three pillars: regulation between countries, scientific evidence with clinical validity, and professional training.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, primary obesity surgery endoluminal (POSE) is performed with the IOP system. It is a more complex device, equipped with a 54 Fr handle-controlled tube (TransPort ® ) able to be maneuvered in four directions and with four channels that house specialized instruments for grasping tissue folds (g-Lix™ and g-Prox EZ ® ) for positioning tissue anchors (g-Cath EZ™), and for lumen visualization with an ultra-slim endoscope [ 50 , 51 ].…”

Section: Primary Bariatric Endoscopic Therapiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Review on Bariatric Endoscopy: Where We Are Now and Where We Are Going

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Obesity is a chronic disease that impairs quality of life and leads to several comorbidities. When conservative therapies fail, bariatric surgical options such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are the most effective therapies to induce persistent weight loss. Over the last two decades, bariatric endoscopy has become a valid alternative to surgery in specific settings. Primary bariatric endoscopic therapies: Restrictive gastric procedures, such as intragastric balloons (IGBs) and endoscopic gastroplasty, have been shown to be effective in inducing weight loss compared to diet modifications alone. Endoscopic gastroplasty is usually superior to IGBs in maintaining weight loss in the long-term period, whereas IGBs have an established role as a bridge-to-surgery approach in severely obese patients. IGBs in a minority of patients could be poorly tolerated and require early removal. More recently, novel endoscopic systems have been developed with the combined purpose of inducing weight loss and improving metabolic conditions. Duodenal mucosal resurfacing demonstrated efficacy in this field in its early trials: significant reduction from baseline of HbA1c values and a modest reduction of body weight were observed. Other endoscopic malabsorptive have been developed but need more evidence. For example, a pivotal trial on duodenojejunal bypasses was stopped due to the high rate of severe adverse events (hepatic abscesses). Optimization of these more recent malabsorptive endoscopic procedures could expand the plethora of bariatric patients that could be treated with the intention of improving their metabolic conditions. Revisional bariatric therapies: Weight regain may occur in up to one third of patients after bariatric surgery. Different endoscopic procedures are currently performed after both RYGB and SG in order to modulate post-surgical anatomy. The application of argon plasma coagulation associated with endoscopic full-thickness suturing systems (APC-TORe) and Re-EndoSleeve have shown to be the most effective endoscopic treatments after RYGB and SG, respectively. Both procedures are usually well tolerated and have a very low risk of stricture. However, APC-TORe may sometimes require more than one session to obtain adequate final results. The aim of this review is to explore all the currently available primary and revisional endoscopic bariatric therapies focusing on their efficacy and safety and their potential application in clinical practice.

show abstract

Bariatric and Metabolic Endoscopy: A New Paradigm

Cited by 11 publications

References 88 publications

Comparison of safety and efficacy of intragastric botulinum toxin-A versus gastric balloon

Comparison of safety and efficacy of intragastric botulinum toxin-A versus gastric balloon

Obesity and Nutrigenetics Testing: New Insights

A Comprehensive Review on Bariatric Endoscopy: Where We Are Now and Where We Are Going

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About