RESUMO
Almost one third of patients do not achieve type 2 diabetes remission after bariatric surgery or are unable to sustain this effect long term. Our objective was to delve further into the dynamic responses of diabetes after bariatric surgery and to evaluate the "time-within-remission range" as a variable of metabolic control. A descriptive cohort study was done using a computerised multicentre and multidisciplinary registry. All data were adjusted by propensity score. A total of 1186 subjects with a follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.5 years were included. Type of surgery, diabetes remission, recurrence of diabetes, "time-within-remission range" and key predictors of diabetes outcomes were assessed. All patients (70% women, 51.4 ± 9.2 years old, body mass index (BMI) 46.3 ± 6.9 kg/m2) underwent primary bariatric procedures. "Time-within-remission range" were 83.3% (33.3-91.6) after gastric bypass, 68.7% (7.1-87.5) after sleeve gastrectomy and 90% (83.3-92.8) after malabsorptive techniques (p < 0.001 for all). Duration of diabetes, baseline HbA1c and insulin treatment were significantly negatively correlated with the "time-within-remission range". The association of bariatric techniques with "time-within-remission range", using gastric bypass as a reference, were: odds ratio (OR) 3.70 (2.34-5.84), p < 0.001 for malabsorptive techniques and OR 0.55 (0.40-0.75), p < 0.001 for sleeve gastrectomy. Characteristics of type 2 diabetes powerfully influence the outcomes of bariatric surgery. The "time-within-remission range" unveils a superiority of gastric bypass compared to sleeve gastrectomy.
RESUMO
Bariatric surgery (BS) is a highly effective therapy for morbid obesity, yet with a wide inter-individual variability on weight-loss responses. To determine genetic influence on weight loss after BS we compared the within-pairs difference in maximum percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) and the within-pairs %EWL differences over a mean follow-up of 53.6 ± 36.4 months between 47 pairs of first-degree relatives and 47 genetically unrelated control pairs. Within-pairs maximum %EWL difference was similar between first-degree related pairs and control pairs (p = 0.100). Within-pairs %EWL difference increased through follow-up (p < 0.001). However, effect of time was different depending on genetic background (ptime*group = 0.001). Increased variability in mid-term weight response was present in unrelated pairs but not in first-degree pairs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.535, respectively). To assess shared environment influence, 16 married couples were identified and 16 unrelated and non-cohabiting matched pairs were also analyzed. In these analysis within-pairs difference in %EWL also increase over time (p = 0.025) but no group by time effect was observed (ptime×group = 0.177). In conclusion first-degree related participants showed closer weight trajectories after BS time than genetically unrelated subjects. Genetic background might partially explain the variability in mid-term weight-loss after BS.
