Influence of the Elipse Intragastric Balloon on Obesity and Metabolic Profile: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
ISSN: 1539-2031
Titre abrégé: J Clin Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7910017
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
27
10
2021
entrez:
4
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intragastric balloons (IGBs) have been used to bridge the obesity treatment gap with the benefits of being minimally invasive but still required endoscopy. The Elipse IGB is a swallowable balloon that is spontaneously excreted at ∼16 weeks. However, studies are limited by small sample sizes. The authors aim to assess clinically relevant endpoints, namely weight loss outcomes, metabolic profile, balloon tolerability, and adverse events. A literature search was performed from several databases from inception to July 2020. The pooled means and proportions of our data were analyzed using a random effects model. Seven studies involving 2152 patients met our eligibility criteria and were included. The mean baseline body mass index ranged from 32.1 to 38.6. The pooled mean difference (MD) in body mass index was 0.88 [confidence interval (CI): 0.58-1.18, I2=98%]. Total body weight loss was 12% (CI: 10.1-14.3, I2=94%) and excess body weight loss was 49.1% (CI: 30.6-67.5, I2=97%). The MD in waist circumference was 0.89 (CI: 0.72-1.05, I2=53%). MD in triglyceride level was 0.66 (CI: 0.21-1.1, I2=96%). Pooled early deflation rate was 1.8% (CI: 0.6-5.1, I2=74%). Our study also showed that the Elipse balloon was associated with less adverse events when compared with other IGBs. This meta-analysis demonstrates that the Elipse intragastric balloon is a safe, effective, and tolerable device for weight loss and obesity with a minimal side effect profile.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Intragastric balloons (IGBs) have been used to bridge the obesity treatment gap with the benefits of being minimally invasive but still required endoscopy. The Elipse IGB is a swallowable balloon that is spontaneously excreted at ∼16 weeks. However, studies are limited by small sample sizes. The authors aim to assess clinically relevant endpoints, namely weight loss outcomes, metabolic profile, balloon tolerability, and adverse events.
METHODS
A literature search was performed from several databases from inception to July 2020. The pooled means and proportions of our data were analyzed using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving 2152 patients met our eligibility criteria and were included. The mean baseline body mass index ranged from 32.1 to 38.6. The pooled mean difference (MD) in body mass index was 0.88 [confidence interval (CI): 0.58-1.18, I2=98%]. Total body weight loss was 12% (CI: 10.1-14.3, I2=94%) and excess body weight loss was 49.1% (CI: 30.6-67.5, I2=97%). The MD in waist circumference was 0.89 (CI: 0.72-1.05, I2=53%). MD in triglyceride level was 0.66 (CI: 0.21-1.1, I2=96%). Pooled early deflation rate was 1.8% (CI: 0.6-5.1, I2=74%). Our study also showed that the Elipse balloon was associated with less adverse events when compared with other IGBs.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis demonstrates that the Elipse intragastric balloon is a safe, effective, and tolerable device for weight loss and obesity with a minimal side effect profile.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33394629
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001484
pii: 00004836-202111000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
836-841Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Hales CM, Caroll MD, Fryar CD, et al. Prevalence of obesity among adults and youth: United States, 2015-2016. NCHS Data Brief. 2017;288:1–8.
Nguyen NT, Varela JE. Bariatric surgery for obesity and metabolic disorders: state of the art. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14:160–169.
Shahnazarian V, Ramai D, Sarkar A. Endoscopic bariatric therapies for treating obesity: a learning curve for gastroenterologists. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:16.
Turkeltaub JA, Edmundowicz SA. Endoscopic bariatric therapies: intragastric balloons, tissue apposition, and aspiration therapy. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019;17:187–201.
Neto MG, Silva LB, de Quadros LG, et al. Galvao Neto M, Silva L, Usuy E Jr, Campos J. Intragastric balloons as a bridge to bariatric and non-bariatric surgery in super-obese patients. Intragastric Balloon for Weight Management. Cham: Springer; 2020:209–216.
Kim SH, Chun HJ, Choi HS, et al. Current status of intragastric balloon for obesity treatment. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:5495–5504.
Tangalakis LL, Omotosho P Nau P, Pauli E, Sandler B, Trus T. Bariatric endoscopic procedures: space-occupying devices. The SAGES Manual of Flexible Endoscopy. Charm: Springer; 2020:503–514.
Tate CM, Geliebter A. Intragastric balloon treatment for obesity: review of recent studies. Adv Ther. 2017;34:1859–1875.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.
Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, et al. Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. In: Sutton A, ed. New York, NY: J. Wiley; 2000.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:137–159.
Riley RD, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011;342:d549.
Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89:902–903.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.
Kanwal F, White D. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1184–1186.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–1302.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–872.
Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56:455–463.
Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. New York, NY: J Wiley; 2006.
Raftopoulos I, Giannakou A. The Elipse Balloon, a swallowable gastric balloon for weight loss not requiring sedation, anesthesia or endoscopy: a pilot study with 12-month outcomes. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13:1174–1182.
Alsabah S, Al Haddad E, Ekrouf S, et al. The safety and efficacy of the procedureless intragastric balloon. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14:311–317.
Machytka E, Gaur S, Chuttani R, et al. Elipse, the first procedureless gastric balloon for weight loss: a prospective, observational, open-label, multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2017;49:154–160.
Jamal MH, Almutairi R, Elabd R, et al. The safety and efficacy of procedureless gastric balloon: a study examining the effect of Elipse intragastric balloon safety, short and medium term effects on weight loss with 1-year follow-up post-removal. Obes Surg. 2019;29:1236–1241.
Al-Subaie S, Khalifa S, Buhaimed W, et al. A prospective pilot study of the efficacy and safety of Elipse intragastric balloon: a single-center, single-surgeon experience. Int J Surg. 2017;48:16–22.
Genco A, Ernesti I, Ienca R, et al. Safety and efficacy of a new swallowable intragastric balloon not needing endoscopy: early Italian experience. Obes Surg. 2018;28:405–409.
Ienca R, Al Jarallah M, Caballero A, et al. The procedureless elipse gastric balloon program: multicenter experience in 1770 consecutive patients. Obes Surg. 2020;11:1–9.
Ribeiro da Silva J, Proença L, Rodrigues A, et al. Intragastric balloon for obesity treatment: safety, tolerance, and efficacy. GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2018;25:236–242.
Meshkinpour H, Hsu D, Farivar S. Effect of gastric bubble as a weight reduction device: a controlled, crossover study. Gastroenterology. 1988;95:589–592.
Agnihotri A, Xie A, Bartalos C, et al. Real-world safety and efficacy of fluid-filled dual intragastric balloon for weight loss. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:1081–1088.
Force AB. ASGE Bariatric Endoscopy Task Force systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting endoscopic bariatric therapies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:425–438.
Bazerbachi F, Vargas EJ, Abu Dayyeh BK. Endoscopic bariatric therapy: a guide to the intragastric balloon. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:1421–1431.
Mitura K, Garnysz K. Tolerance of intragastric balloon and patient’s satisfaction in obesity treatment. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2015;10:445–449.
Vargas EJ, Pesta CM, Bali A, et al. Single fluid-filled intragastric balloon safe and effective for inducing weight loss in a real-world population. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:1073–1080.e1.
Genco A, Ienca R, Ernesti I, et al. Improving weight loss by combination of two temporary antiobesity treatments. Obes Surg. 2018;28:3733–3737.
De Peppo F, Caccamo R, Adorisio O, et al. The Obalon swallowable intragastric balloon in pediatric and adolescent morbid obesity. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E59–E63.