Does endoscopic mean safer? A comparison of the short-term safety of endoscopic versus laparoscopic bariatric therapies

Background and study aims There is minimal research on real-world, large-volume data comparing endoscopic bariatric therapy (EBT) to laparoscopic bariatric therapy (LBT). This study aimed to compare 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality outcomes of primary EBT vs LBT using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. Patients and methods Patients aged 18 to 80 with body mass index (BMI) 35 to 40 kg/m (2) undergoing primary procedures were included. Propensity score matching 1:50 was performed for EBT versus LBT based on age, sex, and BMI. Results We matched 211 EBTs with 9,059 LBTs. Operative length (63.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.9, 69.8 versus 81.1, 95 % CI: 80.1, 82.1) and length of stay (0.49 days, 95 % CI: 0.29, 0.69 versus 1.43 days, 95 % CI: 1.41, 1.45) were significantly lower in the EBT group than the LBT group. There was no difference between EBT and LBT in the odds of readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.08, 1.25), reoperation (OR = 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.05, 2.84), or reintervention (OR = 0.98, 95 % CI: 0.24, 3.99). After controlling for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sleep apnea, history of myocardial infarction, hypertension requiring medications, and diabetes, EBT continued to be associated with lower odds of having any adverse event (AE) than LBT, with an OR of 0.34 (95 % CI: 0.16, 0.69). Subgroup analysis comparing EBT to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) showed that EBT was associated with a lower risk having any AE than LSG, with an OR of 0.39 (95 % CI: 0.19, 0.79). Conclusions EBT is associated with a lower 30-day AE rate and shorter procedural length and length of stay than LBT, with similar rates of readmission, reintervention, and reoperation.