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

Raed M Tayyem, Haitham G Qandeel, Hamzeh I Al-Balas, Farah R Tayyem, Jehad Z Fataftah, Mahmoud I Al-Balas
{"title":"Comparison of safety and efficacy of intragastric botulinum toxin-A versus gastric balloon.","authors":"Raed M Tayyem,&nbsp;Haitham G Qandeel,&nbsp;Hamzeh I Al-Balas,&nbsp;Farah R Tayyem,&nbsp;Jehad Z Fataftah,&nbsp;Mahmoud I Al-Balas","doi":"10.4103/sjg.sjg_534_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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<sup>2</sup>, whereas a BMI >25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> was allowed in the EPGB group. The main measured outcomes were weight loss, procedure duration, complications, early satiety, and quality of life (QoL).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":520774,"journal":{"name":"Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association","volume":" ","pages":"276-281"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2c/4c/SJG-28-276.PMC9408739.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_534_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

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/m2, whereas a BMI >25 kg/m2 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胃内注射a型肉毒杆菌毒素与胃球囊的安全性和有效性比较。
背景:进行了一项前瞻性病例匹配研究,比较内镜下胃内肉毒毒素A (EIBT)与内镜下计划胃球囊(EPGB)治疗肥胖的安全性和有效性。方法:176例患者(年龄和性别匹配)平均分为EIBT组(n = 88)和EPGB组(n = 88)。接受EIBT的患者体重指数(BMI)限制在25至35 kg/m2之间,而EPGB组允许BMI >25 kg/m2。主要测量结果为体重减轻、手术时间、并发症、早期饱腹感和生活质量(QoL)。结果:患者平均随访6个月。EPGB组的平均体重减轻量大于EIBT组(15.6 kg对9.3 kg, P < 0.001)。然而,EIBT组的超重减重百分比和饱腹感评分更高(59.1% vs 42.2%, P < 0.001;3.5 vs. 2.3, P < 0.001)。EIBT患者的手术时间较短(10分钟vs 15分钟,P < 0.001)。EPGB组术后并发症发生率明显高于对照组(30% vs. 9%, P = 0.001)。EPGB组不良症状持续时间更长(5.2天比0.7天,P < 0.001)。两组在生活质量方面都有类似的改善。结论:EIBT是一种安全有效的治疗轻度肥胖的方法。虽然EPGB组的体重减轻更大,但EIBT组的体重减轻百分比、手术时间、术后并发症和症状持续时间明显更好。两组患者的生活质量改善具有可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Autoimmune hepatitis overlap syndrome: Clinical presentation, treatment response, and disease evolution: Tertiary centre experience. Effectiveness of AI-enhanced colonoscopy: A case-control study using real world evidence in a young screening age population. A preventable surge: Confronting the rising burden of colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia through enhanced screening. Digital horizons: Exploring the future of AI-enabled gastroenterology in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Eradication rates of Helicobacter pylori regimens and predictors of treatment failure: A multicenter real-world study in Saudi Arabia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1