Key result
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty linked to ~6% less weight loss than sleeve gastrectomy alongside higher readmissions.
Why the study?
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty offers a less invasive alternative to sleeve gastrectomy while preserving gastric anatomy, but comparative effectiveness data from large real-world cohorts remain limited.
Does endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty compared to sleeve gastrectomy improve 6-month weight loss in patients undergoing bariatric surgery?
Cohort (n=3,753)
Yes
Does endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty compared to sleeve gastrectomy improve 6-month weight loss in patients undergoing bariatric surgery?
Mean Difference: 7.4 (95% CI 6.59–8.21)
Absolute Event Rate: -12.33% vs -18.51%
p-value: p=<0.001
In a national registry cohort, sleeve gastrectomy resulted in greater 6-month weight loss and better comorbidity outcomes compared to endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, while ESG had higher readmission and reoperation rates.
SG was associated with greater 6-month weight loss than ESG; leaves open whether RCTs will confirm superiority before changing bariatric practice.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) offers a less invasive alternative to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) while preserving gastric anatomy; however, comparative effectiveness data from large real-world cohorts remain limited. Using the 2023 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) follow-up file, we compared short-term weight-loss and clinical outcomes after ESG and SG. STUDY DESIGN: ESG and SG cases were identified from the 2023 MBSAQIP follow-up file. Using target trial emulation methodology, patients underwent 1:8 nearest-neighbor matching on age, sex, race, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular comorbidity, and highest preoperative body mass index. The primary outcome was percent weight change (%WC) from highest preoperative weight to 6 months. The primary analysis used inverse probability of censoring weighting regression to account for missing 6-month weights. Secondary outcomes included 30-day adverse events and 6-month comorbidity and laboratory outcomes. RESULTS: The matched cohort included 3,753 patients (ESG, 417; SG, 3,336). At 6 months, SG achieved greater weight loss than ESG (-18.51% ± 7.98 vs -12.33% ± 6.96; p<0.001). In inverse probability of censoring weighting regression, SG remained associated with greater %WC (ESG coefficient +7.40; 95% CI, 6.59-8.21). Absolute adverse-event rates were low in both groups. SG demonstrated more favorable comorbidity outcomes, whereas ESG was associated with higher 30-day and 6-month readmission (3.8% vs 1.6%) and reoperation (1.0% vs 0.3%) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this target trial emulation of a national bariatric registry, SG was associated with greater 6-month weight loss and more favorable short-term comorbidity outcomes than ESG. Although ESG produced clinically meaningful weight reduction with low absolute adverse-event rates, its higher readmission and reoperation rates should be considered during procedure selection and patient counseling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leslie et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Obesity (n=3,753). Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) vs. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) was evaluated on percent weight change (%WC) from highest preoperative weight to 6 months (coefficient +7.40, 95% CI 6.59-8.21, p=<0.001). Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty resulted in less 6-month weight loss than sleeve gastrectomy (-12.33% vs -18.51%; P<0.001) and was associated with higher readmission and reoperation rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: