Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(09): E1245-E1253
DOI: 10.1055/a-1880-7580
Original article

Weight loss after endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty is independent of suture pattern: results from a randomized controlled trial

Paraskevas Gkolfakis
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Pauline Van Ouytsel
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Youssef Mourabit
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Michael Fernandez
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Rawad Yared
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Jacques Deviere
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Vincent Huberty
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
› Author AffiliationsTRIAL REGISTRATION: Single center randomized controlled trial at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims This was a single-blind, single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial aimed at comparing the efficacy of three different suture patterns for endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty using Endomina (E-ESG).

Patients and methods The suture patterns aimed to modify gastric accommodation by increasing the fundus distention ability (Group A), to reduce gastric volume (Group B) or to interrupt gastric emptying (Group C). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 and underwent clinical follow-up, gastric emptying scintigraphy, and satiety tests at baseline and 6 and 12 months post-procedure. The primary outcome was total body weight loss (TBWL) and excess weight loss (EWL) at 12 months post-procedure. Secondary outcomes included the impact of the suture patterns on gastric emptying and satiety.

Results Overall, 48 patients (40 [83.3 %] female, aged 41.9 ± 9.5 years, body mass indexI 33.8 ± 2.7 kg/m2) were randomized (16 in each group). In the entire cohort, mean (95 % confidence interval [CI]) TBWL and EWL at the end of the follow-up were 10.11 % (7.1–13.12) and 42.56 (28.23–56.9), respectively. There was no difference among the three study groups in terms of TBWL (95 %CI) (9.13 % [2.16–16.11] vs. 11.29 % [5.79–16.80] vs. 9.96 % [4.58–15.35]; P = 0.589) and EWL (95 %CI) (34.54 % [6.09–62.99] vs. 44.75 % [23.63–65.88] vs. 46.94 % [16.72–77.15]; P = 0.888) at 12 months post-procedure. The three groups did not differ in terms of mean gastric emptying time or in terms of satiety tests at the end of the follow-up. No serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions Three different suture patterns during E-ESG demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of weight loss, with an overall EWL of > 25 % and TBWL of > 10 % at 12 months.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 23 January 2022

Accepted after revision: 24 May 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
21 June 2022

Article published online:
14 September 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Sjöström L, Narbro K, Sjöström CD. et al. Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 741-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Abu Dayyeh BK, Kumar N. ASGE Bariatric Endoscopy Task Force and ASGE Technology Committee. et al. ASGE Bariatric Endoscopy Task Force systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting endoscopic bariatric therapies. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 425-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sullivan S, Edmundowicz SA, Thompson CC. Endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies: new and emerging technologies. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 1791-1801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hedjoudje A, Dayyeh BA, Cheskin LJ. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1043-1053
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Gys B, Plaeke P, Lamme B. et al. Endoscopic gastric plication for morbid obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data over time. Obes Surg 2019; 29: 3021-3029
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Abu Dayyeh BK, Bazerbachi F, Vargas EJ. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for treatment of class 1 and 2 obesity (MERIT): a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet 2022; 28 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01280-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Huberty V, Machytka E, Boškoski I. et al. Endoscopic gastric reduction with an endoluminal suturing device: a multicenter prospective trial with 1-year follow-up. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1156-1162
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Huberty V, Ibrahim M, Hiernaux M. et al. Safety and feasibility of an endoluminal-suturing device for endoscopic gastric reduction. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 833-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 BASO consensus 2020. Available from (Accessed 2021 Dec 12): https://belgium.easo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/BASO_consensus_2020_French_main.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Mechanick JI, Youdim A, Jones DB. et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient -- 2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2013; 9: 159-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tack J, Piessevaux H, Coulie B. et al. Role of impaired gastric accommodation to a meal in functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 1998; 115: 1346-1352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Xi W, Pennell M, Andridge R. et al. Comparison of intent-to-treat analysis strategies for pre-post studies with loss to follow-up. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2018; 11: 20-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Twisk JW, Rijnhart JJ, Hoekstra T. et al. Intention-to-treat analysis when only a baseline value is available. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2020; 20: 100684
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Huberty V, Boskoski I, Bove V. et al. Endoscopic sutured gastroplasty in addition to lifestyle modification: short-term efficacy in a controlled randomised trial. Gut 2020; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322026.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Singh S, Hourneaux de Moura DT, Khan A. et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty worldwide for treatment of obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020; 16: 340-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Currie AC, Glaysher MA, Blencowe NS. et al. Systematic review of innovation reporting in endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty. Obes Surg 2021; 31: 2962-2978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Espinet-Coll E, Nebreda-Durán J, Galvao-Neto M. et al. Suture pattern does not influence outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in obese patients. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E1349-E1358
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Abu Dayyeh BK, Acosta A, Camilleri M. et al. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty alters gastric physiology and induces loss of body weight in obese individuals. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar