TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of the FDA-approved Intragastric Balloon Systems in a Clinical Setting
AU - Swei, Eric
AU - Almuhaidb, Aymen
AU - Sullivan, Shelby
AU - Al-Shahrani, Abdullah
AU - D'Souza, Felicia R.
AU - Altayar, Osama
AU - Bell, Suzanne
AU - Maday, Rachel
AU - Wagh, Mihir S.
AU - Mullady, Dan
AU - Bennett, Michael
AU - Early, Dayna
AU - Kushnir, Vladimir
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/7/24
Y1 - 2023/7/24
N2 - Background and Aims: The gas-filled intragastric balloon (IGB) system (Obalon) and the fluid-filled IGB system (Orbera) are the current FDA-approved IGB systems to treat obesity; however, they have not been previously compared in clinical practice. The aims of this study were to compare their efficacy, tolerance, and safety in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients treated with the gas-filled IGB or fluid-filled IGB between October 2015 and May 2020 at 2 academic centers. The primary endpoints included percent total body weight loss at balloon removal in patients who completed at least 20 weeks of therapy, the difference in adverse events that required urgent evaluation or hospitalization, and early removal in the 2 groups. Results: A total of 87 patients underwent successful IGB placement (gas-filled IGB n=57, age 48.9±8.8, body mass index 35.5±5 kg/m2; fluid-filled IGB n=30, age 49.2±14.3, body mass index 38.8±6 kg/m2). Eleven patients underwent early device removal. There were no differences in percent total body weight loss at balloon removal and 12 months between the balloon systems (P=0.39). Patients who received the fluid-filled IGB were more likely to require urgent evaluation or treatment, require hospital stay >24 hours, and need early balloon system removal compared with patients treated with the gas-filled IGB. Conclusion: In this 2-center cohort, both FDA-approved gastric balloon systems had the same effectiveness, but the gas-filled IGB had fewer serious adverse events and better tolerability than the fluid-filled IGB.
AB - Background and Aims: The gas-filled intragastric balloon (IGB) system (Obalon) and the fluid-filled IGB system (Orbera) are the current FDA-approved IGB systems to treat obesity; however, they have not been previously compared in clinical practice. The aims of this study were to compare their efficacy, tolerance, and safety in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients treated with the gas-filled IGB or fluid-filled IGB between October 2015 and May 2020 at 2 academic centers. The primary endpoints included percent total body weight loss at balloon removal in patients who completed at least 20 weeks of therapy, the difference in adverse events that required urgent evaluation or hospitalization, and early removal in the 2 groups. Results: A total of 87 patients underwent successful IGB placement (gas-filled IGB n=57, age 48.9±8.8, body mass index 35.5±5 kg/m2; fluid-filled IGB n=30, age 49.2±14.3, body mass index 38.8±6 kg/m2). Eleven patients underwent early device removal. There were no differences in percent total body weight loss at balloon removal and 12 months between the balloon systems (P=0.39). Patients who received the fluid-filled IGB were more likely to require urgent evaluation or treatment, require hospital stay >24 hours, and need early balloon system removal compared with patients treated with the gas-filled IGB. Conclusion: In this 2-center cohort, both FDA-approved gastric balloon systems had the same effectiveness, but the gas-filled IGB had fewer serious adverse events and better tolerability than the fluid-filled IGB.
KW - endoscopic bariatric therapy
KW - fluid-filled intragastric balloon
KW - gas-filled intragastric balloon
KW - obesity
KW - weight loss
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85162904698&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001718
DO - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001718
M3 - Article
C2 - 35604348
AN - SCOPUS:85162904698
SN - 0192-0790
VL - 57
SP - 578
EP - 585
JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
IS - 6
ER -