Obesity surgery · 2014
Lower glycemic fluctuations early after bariatric surgery partially explained by caloric restriction.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yip S, Signal M, Smith G, Beban G, Booth M, Babor R, Chase J G, Murphy R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We assessed the acute impact of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (GBP) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared to caloric-matched control group without surgery on glucose excursion in obese patients with type 2 diabetes, and examined if this was mediated by changes in insulin resistance, early insulin response or glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 levels.
METHODS: Six-day subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recordings were obtained from patients beginning 3 days before GBP (n = 11), SG (n = 10) or fasting in control group (n = 10). GLP-1, insulin and glucose were measured during 75 g oral glucose tolerance testing at the start and end of each CGM.
RESULTS: Post-operative hyperglycaemia occurred after both surgeries in the first 6 h, with a more rapid decline in glycaemia after GBP (p < 0.001). Beyond 24 h post-operatively, continuous overlapping of net glycaemia action reduced from baseline after GBP (median [interquartile range]) 1.6 [1.2-2.4] to 1.0 [0.7-1.3] and after SG 1.4 [0.9-1.8] to 0.7 [0.7-1.0]; p < 0.05), similar to controls (2.2 [1.7-2.5] to 1.3 [0.8-2.8] p < 0.05). Higher log GLP-1 increment post-oral glucose occurred after GBP (mean ± SE, 0.80 ± 0.12 vs. 0.37 ± 0.09, p < 0.05), but not after SG or control intervention. Among subgroup with baseline hyperglycaemia, a reduction in HOMA-IR followed GBP. Reduction in time and level of peak glucose and 2-h glucose occurred after both surgeries but not in controls.
CONCLUSIONS: GBP and SG have a similar acute impact on reducing glycaemia to caloric restriction; however, with a superior impact on glucose tolerance.
METHODS: Six-day subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recordings were obtained from patients beginning 3 days before GBP (n = 11), SG (n = 10) or fasting in control group (n = 10). GLP-1, insulin and glucose were measured during 75 g oral glucose tolerance testing at the start and end of each CGM.
RESULTS: Post-operative hyperglycaemia occurred after both surgeries in the first 6 h, with a more rapid decline in glycaemia after GBP (p < 0.001). Beyond 24 h post-operatively, continuous overlapping of net glycaemia action reduced from baseline after GBP (median [interquartile range]) 1.6 [1.2-2.4] to 1.0 [0.7-1.3] and after SG 1.4 [0.9-1.8] to 0.7 [0.7-1.0]; p < 0.05), similar to controls (2.2 [1.7-2.5] to 1.3 [0.8-2.8] p < 0.05). Higher log GLP-1 increment post-oral glucose occurred after GBP (mean ± SE, 0.80 ± 0.12 vs. 0.37 ± 0.09, p < 0.05), but not after SG or control intervention. Among subgroup with baseline hyperglycaemia, a reduction in HOMA-IR followed GBP. Reduction in time and level of peak glucose and 2-h glucose occurred after both surgeries but not in controls.
CONCLUSIONS: GBP and SG have a similar acute impact on reducing glycaemia to caloric restriction; however, with a superior impact on glucose tolerance.