EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stent placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life, thereby necessitating effective and safe palliative treatment. As such, we sought to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) versus duodenal stent (DS) placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) for palliation of malignant GOO. METHODS: Searches of electronic databases were performed to identify studies comparing EUS-GE versus DS and/or SGJ for palliative treatment of GOO. Outcomes included technical and clinical success, severe adverse events (SAEs), rate of stent obstruction (including tumor ingrowth), length of hospital stay (LOS), reintervention, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Differences in dichotomous and continuous outcomes were reported as risk difference and mean difference, respectively. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 513 patients) were included. When compared to DS placement, EUS-GE was associated with a higher clinical success, fewer SAEs, decreased stent obstruction, lower rate of tumor ingrowth, and decreased need for reintervention. Compared to SGJ, EUS-GE was associated with a lower technical success; however, LOS was significantly decreased. All other outcomes including clinical success, SAEs, reintervention rate, and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between an EUS-guided versus surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to DS placement for palliative treatment of malignant GOO. Despite SGJ possessing a higher technical success compared to EUS-GE, LOS was significantly longer with no difference in clinical success or rate of adverse events.

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty plus liraglutide versus endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty alone for weight loss.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) has been shown to be effective for inducing weight loss. The efficacy of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist, to augment weight loss after ESG is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of ESG and liraglutide (ESG-L) compared with ESG alone. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from patients undergoing ESG at 3 outpatient clinics in Brazil between November 2017 and July 2018. Liraglutide was offered to all patients 5 months after ESG. Patients who opted to take liraglutide (ESG-L) were matched 1:1 to patients who declined it (ESG). The primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL), and percent excess weight loss (%EWL) 7 months after initiation of liraglutide (12 months after ESG). The secondary outcome was change in percent body fat 12 months after ESG. ESG technique and postprocedure follow-up were identical at all 3 sites. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded 26 matched pairs. Adjusted comparisons between the 2 groups showed that patients who opted to take liraglutide had a superior mean %TBWL 7 months after initiation of liraglutide (ESG-L) compared with those who declined it (ESG) (24.72% ± 2.12% vs 20.51% ± 1.68%, respectively; P < .001). ESG-L had a statistically greater reduction in percent body fat compared with ESG (7.85% ± 1.26% vs 10.54% ± 1.88%, respectively; P < .001) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of liraglutide at 5 months results in superior weight loss and improved efficacy as demonstrated by decreased body fat 12 months after ESG. Further studies are imperative to determine optimal dose, timing, and duration of liraglutide.

Efficacy of Liraglutide to Prevent Weight Regain After Retrieval of an Adjustable Intra-gastric Balloon-a Case-Matched Study.

PURPOSE: Weight regain after balloon retrieval is a concern with all intra-gastric balloons (IGBs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, to prevent weight regain following IGB retrieval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a case-matched study of patients undergoing Spatz3 adjustable IGB (Spatz FGIA, Inc. NY, USA) at three outpatient clinics in Brazil between November 2015 and January 2019. Seventy-seven patients that opted to take liraglutide following IGB retrieval (IGB-L) were matched 1:1 to 198 patients that declined the medication-IGB-Alone (IGB-A). Propensity score adjustment was performed at the time of balloon retrieval on factors known to influence the choice of liraglutide. Weight and percent body fat (%BF) was measured at baseline and 9 months after IGB retrieval. % BF is defined as the total mass of fat divided by total body mass, multiplied by 100. The primary outcome was weight regain, and the secondary outcome was change in %BF 9 months after IGB retrieval. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded 53 matched pairs. Weight regain to the starting point was not observed in either group. There was significantly less weight regain in IGB-L compared to IGB-A, - 1.15 ± 0.94 kg versus - 0.66 ± 0.99 kg (p = 0.010) 9 months after balloon retrieval. Additionally, %BF decline in IGB-L was superior to IGB-A - 10.83 ± 1.50 versus - 7.94 ± 2.02 (p < 0.01). There was no difference in weight regain or decline in %BF based on liraglutide dose. CONCLUSION: Liraglutide has an additive benefit with respect to efficacy and a reduction in body fat when commenced after IGB retrieval. Future randomized control studies will be needed to determine the optimal dose and duration of liraglutide to achieve superior outcomes.

The Effect of the Intra-gastric Balloon on Gastric Emptying and the DeMeester Score.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The mechanism of weight loss with the intra-gastric balloon (IGB) is thought to be a decrease in gastric emptying (GE); however the evidence is conflicting. Nausea, abdominal pain, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can cause intolerance resulting in early removal. This is demoralizing for the patient and costly for the healthcare system. The ability to predict which patients will have superior weight loss and tolerance is invaluable. We sought to investigate if the IGB induced weight loss by reducing GE and the effect of the IGB on the DeMeester score. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data for patients undergoing IGB placement at a single hospital. Manometry and pH studies were performed before and with the IGB in place. Weight was measured at baseline, at removal, and 6 months later. Adverse events leading to early removal were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were evaluated. There was a statistically significant decrease in GE for solids with the IGB (117.92 ± 150.23 vs 281.48 ± 206.49 min; p = 0.0048), but not for liquids (54.44 ± 17.97 vs 56.08 ± 43.96 min; p = 0.7228). The lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure did not change significantly with placement of the IGB (17.76 ± 7.39 vs 14.74 ± 7.24 mmHg; p = 0.09). On multivariate analysis, increase in DeMeester score was associated with total body weight loss (p = 0.0125) and change in GE (p = 0.038) independently. CONCLUSION: The IGB delays GE for solids, but not for liquids, and increases the DeMeester score by a mechanism other than a loss of LES pressure.