Bariatric endoscopy, care-curative medicine and legal conflicts. Spanish Bariatric Endoscopy Group (Gettemo-SEED) Positioning.

Bariatric endoscopy treats obesity as a disease, in addition to its multiple associated comorbidities, so it should be considered in the "care-curative" field and not as "satisfying, voluntary or outcoming" medicine. Insufficient weight loss cases, or complications may occur. This, in parallel with the greater diffusion of these techniques, results an increase in the risk of complaints and judicial claims, which will presumably grow during next years. In this sense, we consider that all Bariatric Endoscopic Units working with medical-scientific rigor, must be able to be accredited and have legal support by the Scientific Societies. We propose to create a Medical-Legal Advisory Committee, composed of a medical team and a specialized law firm, which allows advising and guiding the endoscopist when incurring in a conflict.

Spanish Intragastric Balloon Consensus Statement (SIBC): practical guidelines based on experience of over 20 000 cases.

BACKGROUND: intragastric balloons (IGBs) are a minimally invasive, increasingly popular option for obesity treatment. However, there is only one worldwide guideline standardizing the technical aspects of the procedure (BIBC, SOARD 2018). OBJECTIVES: to construct a practical guideline for IGB usage by reproducing and expanding the BIBC survey among the Spanish Bariatric Endoscopy Group (GETTEMO). METHODS: a 140-question survey was submitted to all GETTEMO members. Twenty-one Spanish experienced endoscopists in IGBs answered back. Eight topics on patient selection, indications/contraindications, technique, multidisciplinary follow-up, results, safety, and financial/legal aspects were discussed. Consensus was defined as consensus ≥ 70 %. RESULTS: overall data included 20 680 IGBs including 12 different models. Mean age was 42.0 years-old, 79.9 % were women, and the mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 34.05 kg/m². Indication in BMI > 25 kg/m², 10 absolute contraindications, and nutritional and medication measures at follow-up were settled. A mean %TBWL (total body weight loss) of 17.66 % ± 2.5 % was observed. Early removal rate due to intolerance was 3.62 %. Adverse event rate was 0.70 % and 6.37 % for major and minor complications with consensual management. A single case of mortality occurred. IGBs were placed in private health, prior contract, and with full and single payment at the beginning. Seven lawsuits (0.034 %) were received, all ran through civil proceeding, and with favorable final resolution. CONCLUSIONS: this consensus based on more than 20 000 cases represents practical recommendations to perform IGB procedures. This experience shows that the device leads to satisfactory weight loss with a low rate of adverse events. Most results are reproducible compared to those obtained by the BIBC.

Main prophylactic measures in bariatric endoscopy. Spanish Expert Recommendations Guideline.

Bariatric endoscopy (BE) encompasses a number of techniques -some consolidated, some under development- aiming to contribute to the management of obese patients and their associated metabolic diseases as a complement to dietary and lifestyle changes. To date different intragastric balloon models, suture systems, aspiration methods, substance injections and both gastric and duodenal malabsorptive devices have been developed, as well as endoscopic procedures for the revision of bariatric surgery. Their ongoing evolution conditions a gradual increase in the quantity and quality of scientific evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Despite this, scientific evidence remains inadequate to establish strong grades of recommendation allowing a unified perspective on prophylaxis in BE. This dearth of data conditions leads, in daily practice, to frequently extrapolate the measures that are used in bariatric surgery (BS) and/or in general therapeutic endoscopy. In this respect, this special article is intended to reach a consensus on the most common prophylactic measures we should apply in BE. The methodological design of this document was developed while attempting to comply with the following 5 phases: Phase 1: delimitation and scope of objectives, according to the GRADE Clinical Guidelines. Phase 2: setup of the Clinical Guide-developing Group: national experts, members of the Grupo Español de Endoscopia Bariátrica (GETTEMO, SEED), SEPD, and SECO, selecting 2 authors for each section. Phase 3: clinical question form (PICO): patients, intervention, comparison, outcomes. Phase 4: literature assessment and synthesis. Search for evidence and elaboration of recommendations. Based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification, most evidence in this article will correspond to level 5 (expert opinions without explicit critical appraisal) and grade of recommendation C (favorable yet inconclusive recommendation) or D (inconclusive or inconsistent studies). Phase 5: External review by experts. We hope that these basic preventive measures will be of interest for daily practice, and may help prevent medical and/or legal conflicts for the benefit of patients, physicians, and BE in general.

Spanish consensus document on bariatric endoscopy. Part 2: specific endoscopic treatments.

During the last years we have been witnessing a significant increase in the number and type of bariatric endoscopic techniques: we have different types of balloons, suture systems, injection of substances and malabsorptive prosthesis, etc. Also, some endoscopic revisional procedures for patients with weight regain after bariatric surgery have been incorporated. This makes it necessary to protocolize, position and regularize all these techniques, through a consensus that allows their clinical application with the maximum medical rigor and scientific evidence available.

Spanish Consensus Document on Bariatric Endoscopy. Part 1. General considerations.

Obesity is a chronic multifactorial, incurable, recurrent, and progressive disease associated with significant physical and psychological complications, and considerable morbidity and mortality. For this reason, the assessment, management, and follow-up of obese patients should take place in the setting of a multidisciplinary unit equipped with adequate human and structural resources. Medical treatment using hygienic-dietary measures, while indispensable, may be insufficient, and surgery, which is reserved for severe or morbid obesity, is not exempt from complications neither is to the liking of many patients. In this context three situations may be considered where endoscopic treatment, used as a supplementary strategy with few complications, contributes to benefit obese patients: first, in a subgroup of patients with grade-II overweight or non-morbid obesity where medical therapy alone failed or needs supplementation. Second, in patients with morbid obesity when surgery is rejected, is contraindicated, or entails excessive risk. Finally, in patients with superobesity who need to lose weight before bariatric surgery in order to reduce surgery-related morbidity and mortality. In this regard, the Spanish Task Force on Bariatric Endoscopy (Grupo Español de Trabajo para el Tratamiento Endoscópico del Metabolismo y la Obesidad, GETTEMO) have developed this Consensus Document to serve as practical guidance for all professionals involved in the endoscopic management of obesity, and to facilitate establishing a minimum set of requirements for the proper functioning of a bariatric endoscopy unit.

Aspiration Therapy As a Tool to Treat Obesity: 1- to 4-Year Results in a 201-Patient Multi-Center Post-Market European Registry Study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this post-market study was to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of aspiration therapy (AT) in a clinical setting in five European clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The AspireAssist® System (Aspire Bariatrics, Inc. King of Prussia, PA) is an endoscopic weight loss therapy utilizing a customized percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube and an external device to aspirate approximately 30% of ingested calories after a meal, in conjunction with lifestyle counseling. A total of 201 participants, with body mass index (BMI) of 35.0-70.0 kg/m2, were enrolled in this study from June 2012 to December 2016. Mean baseline BMI was 43.6 ± 7.2 kg/m2. RESULTS: Mean percent total weight loss at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively, was 18.2% ± 9.4% (n/N = 155/173), 19.8% ± 11.3% (n/N = 82/114), 21.3% ± 9.6% (n/N = 24/43), and 19.2% ± 13.1% (n/N = 12/30), where n is the number of measured participants and N is the number of participants in the absence of withdrawals or lost to follow-up. Clinically significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), triglycerides, and blood pressure were observed. For participants with diabetes, HbA1C decreased by 1% (P < 0.0001) from 7.8% at baseline to 6.8% at 1 year. The only serious complications were buried bumpers, experienced by seven participants and resolved by removal/replacement of the A-Tube, and a single case of peritonitis, resolved with a 2-day course of intravenous antibiotics. CONCLUSION: This study establishes that aspiration therapy is a safe, effective, and durable weight loss therapy in people with classes II and III obesity in a clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 49958132.