Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of the FDA-approved Intragastric Balloon Systems in a Clinical Setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The gas-filled intragastric balloon (IGB) system (Obalon) and the fluid-filled IGB system (Orbera) are the current FDA-approved IGB systems to treat obesity; however, they have not been previously compared in clinical practice. The aims of this study were to compare their efficacy, tolerance, and safety in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients treated with the gas-filled IGB or fluid-filled IGB between October 2015 and May 2020 at 2 academic centers. The primary endpoints included percent total body weight loss at balloon removal in patients who completed at least 20 weeks of therapy, the difference in adverse events that required urgent evaluation or hospitalization, and early removal in the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients underwent successful IGB placement (gas-filled IGB n=57, age 48.9±8.8, body mass index 35.5±5 kg/m 2 ; fluid-filled IGB n=30, age 49.2±14.3, body mass index 38.8±6 kg/m 2 ). Eleven patients underwent early device removal. There were no differences in percent total body weight loss at balloon removal and 12 months between the balloon systems ( P =0.39). Patients who received the fluid-filled IGB were more likely to require urgent evaluation or treatment, require hospital stay >24 hours, and need early balloon system removal compared with patients treated with the gas-filled IGB. CONCLUSION: In this 2-center cohort, both FDA-approved gastric balloon systems had the same effectiveness, but the gas-filled IGB had fewer serious adverse events and better tolerability than the fluid-filled IGB.

A Comparison of Endoscopic Retrograde Pancreatography With or Without Pancreatoscopy for Removal of Pancreatic Duct Stones.

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic duct stones contribute to pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis, and per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) allows visualization, fragmentation, and removal of these stones. This study compared the safety and efficacy of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) with and without POP. METHODS: This single-center retrospective review compared ERP with and without POP for treatment of main-duct pancreatic duct stones. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as partial or complete stone removal, which was compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: In all, 223 patients underwent 549 ERPs with a technical success rate of 92.4% and complete stone clearance rate of 74.9%. Patients undergoing ERP with POP (n = 94) had higher technical success than patients undergoing ERP without POP (n = 129, 98.9% vs 87.6%, P < 0.001), but required more ERPs (3.1 vs 1.9, P = 0.02). Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography with POP was associated with larger stone size (8.9 vs 6.1 mm, P = 0.001), more stones per case (5+ stones: 33.8% vs 21.1%, P = 0.002), and more impacted stones (48.8% vs 10.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Per-oral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy permits effective stone removal in cases not amenable to standard ERP techniques, including those with larger or more numerous stones.