Closed-loop gastric electrical stimulation versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric band for the treatment of obesity: a randomized 12-month multicenter study.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the weight loss, change in quality of life (QOL) and safety of closed-loop gastric electrical stimulation (CLGES) versus adjustable gastric band (LAGB) in the treatment of obesity. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial randomly assigned the patients in a 21 ratio to laparoscopic CLGES versus LAGB and followed them for 1 year. We enrolled 210 patients, of whom 50 were withdrawn preoperatively. Among 160 remaining patients (mean age=39±11 years; 75% women; mean body mass index=43±6 kg m-2) 106 received CLGES and 54 received LAGB. The first primary end point was non-inferiority of CLGES versus LAGB, ascertained by the proportion of patients who, at 1 year, fulfilled (a) a ⩾20% excess weight loss (EWL); (b) no major device- or procedure-related adverse event (AE); and (c) no major, adverse change in QOL. Furthermore, ⩾50% of patients had to reach ⩾25% EWL. The incidence and seriousness of all AE were analyzed and compared using Mann-Whitney's U-test. RESULTS: At 1 year, the proportions of patients who reached all components of the primary study end point were 66.7 and 73.0% for the LAGB and CLGES group, respectively, with a difference of -6.3% and an upper 95% CI of 7.2%, less than the predetermined 10% margin for confirming the non-inferiority of CLGES. The second primary end point was also met, as 61.3% of patients in the CLGES group reached ⩾25% EWL (lower 95% CI=52.0%; P<0.01). QOL improved significantly and similarly in both groups. AE were significantly fewer and less severe in the CLGES than in the LAGB group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized study confirmed the non-inferiority of CLGES compared with LAGB based on the predetermined composite end point. CLGES was associated with significantly fewer major AE.