Clinical Impact of Enteral Protein Nutritional Therapy on Patients with Obesity Scheduled for Bariatric Surgery: A Focus on Safety, Efficacy, and Pathophysiological Changes

Analysis of aborted bariatric surgeries and potential opportunities

BACKGROUND

Aborted bariatric surgeries are an undesirable experience for patients as they are subjected to potential physical harm and emotional distress. A thorough investigation of aborted bariatric surgeries has not been previously reported. This information may allow the discovery of opportunities to mitigate the risk of aborting some bariatric operations.

METHODS

Data from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative, a statewide bariatric surgery registry, were used to identify all aborted primary bariatric operations from June 2006 through January 2023. The reasons for aborting surgery were divided into seven categories. Stepwise logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of aborted procedures for potentially modifiable factors.

RESULTS

A total of 115,004 patients underwent bariatric surgery with 555 (0.48%) procedures aborted. Of those having an aborted operation the mean age was 52 years and mean BMI was 49.8 with females accounting for 72%. Sleeve gastrectomy had the lowest aborted rate (0.38%) as compared to gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, and biliopancreatic diversion (p < 0.0001). The most common aborted surgery reason categories included adhesions and hernias, tumors and anatomic anomalies, and inadequate visualization due to either hepatomegaly or abdominal wall thickness. The most significant (p < 0.0001) independent predictors of aborted surgeries due to hepatomegaly or abdominal wall thickness were BMI ≥ 60 (OR 10.7), BMI 50 to 59 (OR 3.1) and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.7). Preoperative weight loss was a protective factor for aborting surgery due to hepatomegaly or abdominal wall thickness (OR 0.9; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aborted surgeries are uncommon and occur in approximately 1 in 200 primary bariatric operations with the lowest rate identified in sleeve gastrectomy. Nearly 20% of operations are aborted due to hepatomegaly or abdominal wall thickness and targeting patients with elevated BMIs and diabetes mellitus for preoperative weight loss might reduce the risk of these types of aborted procedures.

Medical supervised duodenal-enteral feeding for the treatment of overweight and obesity: MESUDEFT

BACKGROUND

the development of specialised nutritional support techniques allows the maintenance of an adequate supply of nutrients in those patients in whom oral feeding is not possible or is insufficient in relation to their requirements, trying to improve the quality of life, especially in those with chronic diseases.

METHODS

single-center clinical study carried out in a clinical-nutritional center consisting of a medically supervised nasogastric-duodenal tube feeding treatment for overweight, obesity and increased body fat percentage in patients requiring it by means of duodeno-enteral feeding, expecting losses of more than 10 %.

RESULTS

twenty-nine patients completed the protocol (20.4 % male and 79.6 % female) with a mean age of 38 years (SD: 12.4); 87.2 kg (SD: 18.5) mean weight; 37.9 kg (SD: 4.8) mean iFat%; 32.4 (SD: 5.4) iMean body mass index (BMI); 100 cm (SD: 16.0) iMean waist; 113.6 cm (SD: 10.4) iMean hip; 33.8 cm (SD: 3.9) iMean upper arm circumference; 65.5 cm (SD: 7.5) iMean thigh circumference; 9.7 (SD: 4.8) iVisceral fat index; and 22.9 days (SD: 13.9) mean treatment. A mean of 22.9 (SD: 13.9) days of MESUDEFT influences weight loss, fat loss, visceral fat loss and decreased arm, hip and thigh circumferences (p < 0.05) (i: initial).

CONCLUSIONS

MESUDEFT is shown to be an effective alternative as a sole treatment or as an adjunct prior to bariatric surgery for obesity or overweight treatment with a minimum of 10 % loss of BMI and fat mass at completion and 3-6 months follow-up.

The Real-Life Use of a Protein-Sparing Modified Fast Diet by Nasogastric Tube (ProMoFasT) in Adults with Obesity: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Protein-sparing modified fast (PSMF) diet is a very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet administered to patients with obesity, which preserves lean mass and suppresses appetite as well as continuous enteral feeding. Thus, we aim to evaluate the effect of the PSMF diet administered continuously by nasogastric tube (NGT) or orally.

METHODS

Patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 34.9 kg/m2 were randomly assigned to receive a whey protein PSMF formula through NGT (ProMoFasT) or orally. Data were collected at baseline and after 150 days. The endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

We enrolled 20 patients in the ProMoFasT group and 24 in the oral group. No differences in body weight, BMI or waist circumference between the two groups were found after 150 days. At follow-up, FFM (%) and MM (%) results were higher in the ProMoFasT group than the oral group (63.1% vs. 52.9%, p = 0.012 and 45.0% vs. 36.1%, p = 0.009, respectively) and FM (kg) and FM (%) were significantly lower in the ProMoFasT group (36.9 kg vs. 44.0 kg, p = 0.033 and 37.4% vs. 44.9%, p = 0.012, respectively). Insulin levels were lower in the ProMoFasT group than the oral group at follow-up (11.8 mU/L vs. 28.0 mU/L, p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The ProMoFasT is more effective in improving body composition and glucometabolic markers than the same diet administered orally.