Search

Purpose Based on recent scientific evidence, bariatric surgery is more effective in the management of morbid obesity and related comorbidities than conservative therapy. Pylorus preserving surgical procedures (PPBS) such as laparoscopic single-anastomosis duodeno-jejunal or duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are modified duodenal switch (DS) surgical techniques. The duodeno-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is a novel surgical method in the inventory of metabolism focused manual interventions that excludes duodeno-jejunal mucosa from digestion, mimicking DS procedures without the risk of surgical intervention. The aim of this article is to summarize and compare differences between safety-related features and weight loss outcomes of DJBL and PPBS. Methods A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database. Records of DJBL-related adverse events (AEs), occurrence of PPBS-related complications and reintervention rates were collected. Mean weight, mean body mass index (BMI), percent of excess of weight loss (EWL%), percent of total weight loss (TWL%) and BMI value alterations were recorded for weight loss outcomes. Results A total of 11 publications on DJBL and 6 publications on PPBS were included, involving 800 and 1462 patients, respectively. The baseline characteristics of the patients were matched. Comparison of DJBL-related AEs and PPBS-related severe complications showed an almost equal risk (risk difference (RD): −0.03 and confidence interval (CI): −0.27 to 0.21), despite higher rates among patients having received endoscopic treatment. Overall AE and complication rates classified by Clavien-Dindo showed that PPBS was superior to DJBL due to an excess risk level of 25% (RD: 0.25, CI: 0.01–0.49). Reintervention rates were more favourable in the PPBS group, without significant differences in risk (RD: −0.03, CI: −0.27 to 0.20). However, PPBS seemed more efficient regarding weight loss outcomes at 1-year follow-up according to raw data, while meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference (odds ratio (OR): 1.08, CI: 0.74–1.59 for BMI changes). Conclusion Only limited conclusions can be made based on our findings. PPBS was superior to DJBL with regard to safety outcomes (GRADE IIB), which failed to support the authors’ hypothesis. Surgical procedures showed lower complication rates than the incidence of DJBL-related AEs, although it should be emphasized that the low number of PPBS-related mild to moderate complications reported could be the result of incomplete data recording from the analysed publications. Weight loss outcomes favoured bariatric surgery (GRADE IIB). As the DJBL is implanted into the upper gastrointestinal tract for 6 to 12 months, it seems a promising additional method in the inventory of metabolic interventions.

Purpose People with obesity often develop non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and are at high risk of progression to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Few therapies are effective other than bariatric surgery. We therefore analyzed data from duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) patients regarding steatosis, fibrosis, and NASH. Methods Consecutive DJBL patients with type 2 diabetes underwent standardized assessments up to device removal at 48 weeks. These included aspartate and alanine transaminase (AST, ALT), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP, for steatosis), and liver stiffness measurement (LSM, for fibrosis). The NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), fibrosis-4 score (FIB4), and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test were also used to assess fibrosis and the Fibroscan-AST (FAST) score to assess NASH. Mixed models were used and missing data were accounted for with multiple imputation. Results Thirty-two patients (18 female, mean age 55.1, mean BMI 40.2 kg/m2) were included. After 48 weeks, the change compared to baseline with 95% CI was a factor 0.74 (0.65 to 0.84) for AST, 0.63 (0.53 to 0.75) for ALT, and a difference of − 0.21 (− 0.28 to − 0.13) for FAST, all with p Conclusions One year of DJBL therapy is associated with relevant improvements in non-invasive markers of steatosis and NASH, but not fibrosis, and is accompanied by a substantial number of complications. Given the lack of alternatives, DJBL deserves further attention. Graphical abstract

Background & aims: Duodenal-jejunal bypass liners (DJBLs) prevent absorption in the proximal small intestine, the site of fatty acid absorption. We sought to investigate the effects of a DJBL on blood concentrations of essential fatty acids (EFAs) and bioactive polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Methods: Sub-study of a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial with two treatment groups. Patients aged 18–65 years with type-2 diabetes mellitus and body mass index 30–50 kg/m 2 were randomised to receive a DJBL for 12 months or best medical therapy, diet and exercise. Whole plasma PUFA concentrations were determined at baseline, 10 days, 6 and 11.5 months; data were available for n = 70 patients per group. Results: Weight loss was significantly greater in the DJBL group compared to controls after 11.5 months: total body weight loss 11.3 ± 5.3% versus 6.0 ± 5.7% (mean difference [95% CI] = 5.27% [3.75, 6.80], p < 0.001). Absolute concentrations of both EFAs, linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid, and their bioactive derivatives, arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, docosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, were significantly lower in the DJBL group than in the control group at 6 and 11.5 months follow-up. Total serum cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were also significantly lower in the DJBL group. Conclusion: One year of DJBL therapy is associated with superior weight loss and greater reductions in total serum cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol, but also depletion of EFAs and their longer chain derivatives. DJBL therapy may need to be offset by maintaining an adequate dietary intake of PUFAs or by supplementation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02459561.

BackgroundThe EndoBarrier®(GI Dynamics Inc., Boston, MA, USA) is an endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner developed for the treatment of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Meta-analyses of its effects on glycaemia and weight have called for larger randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level reduction of ≥ 20%. The secondary objectives were to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level of DesignA multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.SettingImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.ParticipantsPatients aged 18–65 years with a body mass index of 30–50 kg/m2and with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus who were on oral glucose-lowering medications.InterventionsParticipants were randomised equally to receive intensive medical therapy alongside a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner device (n = 85) or intensive medical therapy alone for 12 months (n = 85), and were followed up for a further 12 months.ResultsThere was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients achieving the glycaemic primary or secondary outcomes [primary outcome at 12 months: duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 54.5% vs. control group 55.2% (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.98;p = 0.85); primary outcome at 24 months: duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 39.7% vs. control group 36.5% (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 2.47;p = 0.75)]. Significantly more patients in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group than in the control group lost > 15% of their total body weight (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 24.2% vs. control group 3.7%; odds ratio 8.33, 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 39.0;p = 0.007) and achieved blood pressure targets (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 68.2% vs. control group 44.4%; odds ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 5.48;p = 0.014). These differences were observed at 12 months but not at 24 months. There were more adverse events in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group, including one liver abscess. The increase in peripheral insulin sensitivity was superior in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group. Spectroscopic analyses of plasma, urine and faeces revealed several distinct metabolic perturbations in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group but not in the control group. Brain reward responses to food cues were not different between groups. The number of mean quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar in both groups and the additional costs of the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner may outweigh the value of the health benefits by £2560 per patient treated.ConclusionsThe results show that the endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was not superior to intensive medical therapy for glycaemic control and was associated with more adverse events. The duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was associated with significant weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic parameters at 12 months but not at 24 months. Economic evaluation showed that the bypass liner was not cost-effective for glycaemic control or for weight loss.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN30845205.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full inEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 7, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This study was executed with the support of GI Dynamics Inc. and with the kind support of Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition for providing oral nutritional supplements.

Background Obesity surgery mortality risk scoring system (OS-MRS) classifies patients into high, intermediate and low risk, based on age, body mass index, sex and other comorbidities such as hypertension and history of pulmonary embolism. High-risk patients not only have a higher mortality but are more likely to develop post-operative complications necessitating intervention or prolonged hospital stay following bariatric surgery. Endoscopically placed duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve (Endobarrier) has been designed to achieve weight loss and improve glycaemic control in morbidly obese patients with clinically proven effectiveness. The aim of this study was to assess if pre-operative insertion of endobarrier in high-risk patients can decrease morbidity and length of stay after bariatric surgery. Materials and Methods Between 2012 and 2014, a cohort of 11 high-risk patients had an Endobarrier inserted (E&BS group) for 1 year prior to definitive bariatric surgery. These patients were compared against a similar group undergoing primary bariatric surgery (PBS group) during same duration. The two groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, surgical procedure and OS-MRS using propensity score matching. Outcome measures included operative time, morbidity, length of stay, intensive therapy unit (ITU) stay, readmission rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) and percentage total weight loss (%TWL). Results Patient characteristics and OS-MRS were similar in both groups (match tolerance 0.1). There was no significant difference in total length of stay, readmission rate, %EWL and %TWL. Operative time, ITU stay, post-operative complications and severity of complications were significantly less in the E&BS group (p

Background The duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is an endoscopic device designed to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control. The liner is licensed for a maximum implant duration of 12 months. It might be hypothesized that extension of the dwelling time results in added value. The goals of our study were to determine weight change, change in glycemic control, and safety in patients with an intended 24 months of DJBL dwelling time. Methods Patients were initially selected for a 12-month implantation period. When no physical complaints or adverse events (AEs) occurred, motivated patients who responded well were selected for extension of dwelling time to 24 months. Patients underwent a control endoscopy 12 months after implantation and visited the out-patient clinic every 3 months up to explantation. Patients agreed to remove the DJBL when complaints or AEs occurred that could not be treated conservatively. Results Implantation was extended in 44 patients, and 24 (55%) patients completed the full 24 months. Twenty patients required early removal due to AEs. During dwelling time, body weight decreased significantly (15.9 kg; TBWL 14.6%). HbA1c decreased non-significantly (4.9 mmol/mol). The number of insulin users and daily dose of insulin both decreased significantly. At 24 months after removal, glycemic control had worsened, while body weight was still significantly lower compared to baseline. In total, 68% of the patients experienced at least one AE. Two patients developed a hepatic abscess. Conclusions DJBL treatment results in significant weight loss and improves glycemic control during implantation. The largest beneficial effects occur during the first 9–12 months after implantation. Extension of dwelling time to 24 months results only in stabilization of body weight and glycemic control. After explantation, weight improvements are maintained, but glycemic control worsens. As the cumulative risk of AEs increases with time, a maximal dwelling time of 12 months is advisable. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06752-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Objective Unlike gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy procedures, intestinal bypass procedures, Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass in particular, lead to rapid improvements in glycaemia early after surgery. The bypass of the proximal small bowel may have weight loss and even caloric restriction‐independent glucose‐lowering properties on hepatic insulin sensitivity. In this first human mechanistic study, we examined this hypothesis by investigating the early effects of the duodeno‐jejunal bypass liner (DJBL; GI Dynamics, USA) on the hepatic insulin sensitivity by using the gold standard euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp methodology. Method Seven patients with obesity underwent measurement of hepatic insulin sensitivity at baseline, 1 week after a low‐calorie liquid diet and after a further 1 week following insertion of the DJBL whilst on the same diet. Results Duodeno‐jejunal bypass liner did not improve the insulin sensitivity of hepatic glucose production beyond the improvements achieved with caloric restriction. Conclusions Caloric restriction may be the predominant driver of early increases in hepatic insulin sensitivity after the endoscopic bypass of the proximal small bowel. The same mechanism may be at play after Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass and explain, at least in part, the rapid improvements in glycaemia.

Introduction: The prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is increasing. Exclusion of the foregut, as occurs in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, has a key role in the metabolic improvements that occur following bariatric surgery, which are independent of weight loss. Endoscopically placed duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve devices, such as the EndoBarrier (GI Dynamics, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA), have been designed to create an impermeable barrier between chyme exiting the stomach and the mucosa of the duodenum and proximal jejunum. The non-surgical and reversible nature of these devices represents an attractive therapeutic option for patients with obesity and T2DM by potentially improving glycaemic control and reducing their weight.Methods and analysis: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-blinded trial, male and female patients aged 18–65 years with a body mass index 30–50 kg/m2 and inadequately controlled T2DM on oral antihyperglycaemic medications (glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 58–97 mmol/mol) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the EndoBarrier device (n=80) for 12 months or conventional medical therapy, diet and exercise (n=80). The primary outcome measure will be a reduction in HbA1c by 20% at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures will include percentage weight loss, change in cardiovascular risk factors and medications, quality of life, cost, quality-adjusted life years accrued and adverse events. Three additional subgroups will investigate the mechanisms behind the effect of the EndoBarrier device, looking at changes in gut hormones, metabolites, bile acids, microbiome, food hedonics and preferences, taste, brain reward system responses to food, eating and addictive behaviours, body fat content, insulin sensitivity, and intestinal tissue gene expression.Trial registration number: ISRCTN30845205, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02459561.