Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Endoscopy ; 47(4): 302-7, 2015 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25479562

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Intragastric balloons are used as a treatment for obesity. Much of the data collected on balloons has been in the context of clinical trials in academic medical centers or as a bridge to bariatric surgery in obesity centers. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of balloon treatment in private practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 6-month weight loss data and balloon-related complications of patients referred to three private centers for obesity treatment. RESULTS: A total of 815 patients (131 males) were referred for balloon treatment (mean age 36.5 years, mean body weight 111.7 kg, mean body mass index [BMI] 38.1 kg/m(2)). The 6-month weight loss data were available for 672 patients. Mean weight loss was 20.9 kg (7.2 BMI units). A total of 372 patients visited the center only once following balloon placement (i. e. for balloon removal), but these patients still achieved a mean weight loss of 19.4 kg (6.6 BMI units). Successful weight loss (i. e. ≥ 10 %) was achieved in 85.0 %. Severe complications consisted of dehydration requiring hospital admission (n = 2; 0.2 %), and intestinal obstruction caused by balloon deflation, which required surgery (n = 2; 0.2 %). A total of 35 deflated balloons (4.3 %) were passed rectally without any adverse events. Severe esophagitis following balloon placement was diagnosed in 12 patients (1.5 %). A total of 53 patients (6.5 %) requested balloon removal during the first month. Nine balloons (1.1 %) were removed for medical reasons. CONCLUSION: In the private practice setting, intragastric balloons on their own, without an intensive lifestyle program and supportive consultations, resulted in safe and substantial weight losses, and may fill the therapeutic gap between pharmacotherapy and surgery.


Subject(s)
Gastric Balloon , Intestinal Obstruction/etiology , Obesity, Morbid/therapy , Private Practice , Weight Loss , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Body Mass Index , Child , Dehydration/etiology , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/adverse effects , Equipment Failure , Esophagitis/etiology , Female , Gastric Balloon/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
2.
BMC Gastroenterol ; 3: 22, 2003 Aug 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12919638

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since esophageal variceal bleeding is associated with a high mortality rate, prevention of bleeding might be expected to result in improved survival. The first trials to evaluate prophylactic sclerotherapy found a marked beneficial effect of prophylactic treatment. These results, however, were not generally accepted because of methodological aspects and because the reported incidence of bleeding in control subjects was considered unusually high. The objective of this study was to compare endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) with nonactive treatment for the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: 166 patients with esophageal varices grade II, III of IV according to Paquet's classification, with evidence of active or progressive liver disease and without prior variceal bleeding, were randomized to groups receiving ES (n = 84) or no specific treatment (n = 82). Primary end-points were incidence of bleeding and mortality; secondary end-points were complications and costs. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 32 months variceal bleeding occurred in 25% of the patients of the ES group and in 28% of the control group. The incidence of variceal bleeding for the ES and control group was 16% and 16% at 1 year and 33% and 29% at 3 years, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 87% for the ES group and 84% for the control group; the 3-year survival rate was 62% for each group. In the ES group one death occurred as a direct consequence of variceal bleeding compared to 9 in the other group (p = 0.01, log-rank test). Complications were comparable for the two groups. Health care costs for patients assigned to ES were estimated to be higher. Meta-analysis of a large number of trials showed that the effect of prophylactic sclerotherapy is significantly related to the baseline bleeding risk. CONCLUSION: In the present trial, prophylactic sclerotherapy did not reduce the incidence of bleeding from varices in patients with liver cirrhosis and a low to moderate bleeding risk. Although sclerotherapy lowered mortality attributable to variceal bleeding, overall survival was not affected. The effect of prophylactic sclerotherapy seems dependent on the underlying bleeding risk. A beneficial effect can only be expected for patients with a high risk for bleeding.


Subject(s)
Endoscopy, Digestive System/methods , Esophageal and Gastric Varices/complications , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Sclerotherapy/methods , Adult , Aged , Endoscopy, Digestive System/economics , Esophageal and Gastric Varices/economics , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/mortality , Health Care Costs , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Sclerotherapy/adverse effects , Secondary Prevention , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...