Download PDF
Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(02): E222-E227
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-110771
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty with 1-year follow-up: factors predictive of success

G. Lopez-Nava
1   Bariatric Endoscopy Unit, Madrid Sanchinarro University Hospital
,
M. Galvao
2   Gastro Obeso Center, Gastrointestinal Surgery, São Paulo, Brazil
,
I. Bautista-Castaño
1   Bariatric Endoscopy Unit, Madrid Sanchinarro University Hospital
,
J. P. Fernandez-Corbelle
1   Bariatric Endoscopy Unit, Madrid Sanchinarro University Hospital
,
M. Trell
1   Bariatric Endoscopy Unit, Madrid Sanchinarro University Hospital
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 06 September 2015

accepted after revision 23 November 2015

Publication Date:
15 January 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2016; 48(03): 299-299
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-102052

Background and study aims: Bariatric endoscopy has emerged as an aid in the nonsurgical treatment of obesity. The objective of this study is to critically provide the results and follow-up of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty 1 year after the procedure.

Patients and methods: Prospective single-center follow-up study of 25 patients (5 men, 20 women) who underwent flexible endoscopic suturing for endoluminal gastric volume reduction. A multidisciplinary team provided post-procedure care. Patient outcomes were recorded at 1 year after the procedure. Linear regression analysis was done to evaluate the variables associated with best results at 1 year of follow-up.

Results: Mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.5 ± 4.6 kg/m2 (range 30 – 47) and mean age 44.5 ± 8.2 years (range 29 – 60). At 1 year, 22 patients continued with the follow-up (2 dropped out at 6 months and 1 at 3 months). There were no major intra-procedural, early, or delayed adverse events. Mean BMI loss was 7.3 ± 4.2 kg/m2, and mean percentage of total body weight loss was 18.7 ± 10.7 at 1 year. In the linear regression analysis, adjusted by initial BMI, variables associated with %TBWL involved the frequency of nutritional (β = 0.563, P = 0.014) and psychological contacts (β = 0.727, P = 0.025). The number of nutritional and psychological contacts were predictive of good weight loss results.

Conclusions: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty is a feasible, reproducible, and effective procedure to treat obesity. Nutritional and psychological interaction are predictive of success.

 

  • References

  • 1 Abu Dayyeh BK, Thompson CC. Obesity and bariatrics for the endoscopist: New techniques. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2011; 4: 433-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fogel R, De Fogel J, Bonilla Y et al. Clinical experience of transoral suturing for an endoluminal vertical gastroplasty: 1-year follow-up in 64 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brethauer SA, Chand B, Schauer PR et al. Transoral gastric volume reduction for weight management: technique and feasibility in 18 patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2010; 6: 689-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Abu Dayyeh BK, Rajan E, Gostout CJ. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a potential endoscopic alternative to surgical sleeve gastrectomy for treatment of obesity. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 530-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lopez-Nava G, Galvão MP, da Bautista-Castaño I et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for the treatment of obesity. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 449-452
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sharaiha RZ, Kedia P, Kumta N et al. Initial experience with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: technical success and reproducibility in the bariatric population. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 164-166
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 WMA. (2004) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, Tokyo.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lopez-Nava G, Rubio MA, Prados S et al. BioEnterics® intragastric balloon (BIB®). Single ambulatory center Spanish experience with 714 consecutive patients treated with one or two consecutive balloons. Obes Surg 2011; 21: 5-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Machytka E, Klvana P, Kornbluth A et al. Adjustable intragastric balloons: a 12-month pilot trial in endoscopic weight loss management. Obes Surg 2011; 21: 1499-1507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lopez-Nava G, Bautista-Castaño I, Jimenez-Baños A et al. Dual intragastric balloon: single ambulatory center Spanish experience with 60 patients in endoscopic weight loss management. Obes Surg 16.05.2015; [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25982804
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Genco A, López-Nava G, Wahlen C et al. Multi-centre European experience with intragastric balloon in overweight populations: 13 years of experience. Obes Surg 2013; 23: 515-521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kotzampassi K, Grosomanidis V, Papakostas P et al. 500 intragastric balloons: What happens 5 years thereafter?. Obes Surg 2012; 22: 896-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Espinós JC, Turró R, Mata A et al. Early experience with the Incisionless Operating Platform (IOP) for the treatment of obesity: The Primary Obesity Surgery Endolumenal (POSE) procedure. Obes Surg 2013; 23: 1375-1383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 López-Nava Brevière G, Bautista-Castaño I, Jimenez A et al. The Primary Obesity Surgery Endolumenal (POSE) procedure: one-year patient weight loss and safety outcomes. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015; 11: 861-865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ et al. Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 859-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar