Impact of Proceduralist Specialty on Outcomes Following Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty

Gudur, Anuragh; Geng, Calvin; Hallowell, Peter T.; Schirmer, Bruce D.; Shami, Vanessa M.; Wang, Andrew Y.; Podboy, Alexander

doi:10.1007/s11695-022-06282-8

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Weight loss parameters by provider type are reported for BMI, %TBWL, and %EWL (Figure 2A, B, C). The overall mean %TBWL was 15.4 (15.0, 15.7), 17 There was a significant difference in %TWBL between the groups at 6 months (16.5% vs. 15.2%, p=0.01), where patients treated by surgeons had higher weight loss. There was no other significant difference in %TBWL outcomes between the two groups.…”

Section: Weight Loss Outcomes By Provider Typementioning

confidence: 87%

“…The consistency of recording and reporting AEs in endoscopy continues to be a challenge, but is key to assess safety of procedures and enable future research and comparisons 16 . One analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database had findings of similar AE rates at 30 days, although they reported that surgeons had a trend toward a higher rate of reoperations within 30 days, and patients treated by gastroenterologists had more emergency room visits 17 . In our study, the rates of SAEs are far below 5% in either group, which is the standard of safety recommended by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, further emphasizing the remarkable safety profile of ESG across practice settings 18 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Practice patterns and outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty based on provider specialty

Gala,

Brunaldi,

McGowan

et al. 2024

Endosc Int Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is performed in clinical practice by gastroenterologists (GI) and bariatric surgeons. Given the increasing regulatory approval and global adoption, we aim to evaluate real-world outcomes in multidisciplinary practices involving bariatric surgeons and GIs across the United States. Methods We included adult patients with obesity who underwent ESG from January 2013 to August 2022 in seven academic and private centers in the US. Patients and procedural characteristics, serious adverse events (SAEs), and weight loss outcomes up to 24 months were analyzed. SPSS (version 29.0) was used for all statistical analyses. Results 1506 patients from 7 sites included 235 (15.6%) treated by surgeons and 1271 (84.4%) treated by GIs. There were no baseline differences between groups. GIs used APC for marking significantly more often than surgeons (p<0.001). Surgeons placed sutures in the fundus in all instances whereas GIs placed them in the fundus in less than 1% of the cases (p<0.001). Procedure times were significantly different between groups, with surgeons requiring approximately 20 minutes additionally during the procedure, compared to GIs (p<0.001). %TWBL and % responders achieving >10 and > 15% TBWL were similar between the two groups at 12, 18, and 24 months. SAEs were low and similar at 1.7% for surgeons and 2.7% for GIs (p>0.05). Conclusion Data from a large US cohort show significant and sustained weight loss with ESG and excellent safety profile in both bariatric surgery and GI practices, supporting the scalability of the procedure across practices in a multidisciplinary setting.

show abstract

Section: Weight Loss Outcomes By Provider Typementioning

confidence: 87%