Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gastroplasty for treatment of obesity: An overview of comparative meta-analyses

Table 6 Adverse Events following the treatment endoscopic gastroplasty vs other interventions

Ref.	Country	Number of studies & participants	Intervention and comparator	Adverse events reported
Singh et al[9], 2020	United States	1 study; 58 participants	ESG vs IGB	3 (2 upper gastrointestinal bleeding, 1 peri gastric fluid collection)
Mohan et al[13], 2020	United States	15 studies	ESG vs LSG	All ADRs: ESG: 2.9 % (1.8-4.4); LSG: 11.8 % (8.4-16.4); P = 0.001; Bleeding: ESG: 1.1 % (0.7-1.8); LSG: 2.6 % (1.9-3.7); P = 0.005; GERD: ESG: 0.4 % (0.1-1.1); LSG: 5.8 % (3.5-9.3, 73); P = 0.001
Madruga-Neto et al[4], 2018	Brazil	3 studies; 459 patients	ESG vs CT	The total rate of adverse events in the EG group was 52.9%-77.8%, of which 5.0%-5.2% of the events were severe
Jaruvongvanich et al[11], 2020	United States	16 studies; 1625 participants	ft-TORe vs APMC-TORe	APMC-TORe: GI bleeding (1); Overall AE rates: ft-TORe: 9.3% (8-17.8); APMC-TORe: 6.4% (1.9-10.9); stricture rates: ft-TORe: 3.3% (1.4-5.3); APMC-TORe: 4.8% (2.3-7.2)

EG: Endoscopic gastroplasty; ESG: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; IGB: Intragastric balloon; LSG: Laparoscopic sleeve gastroplasty; APMC-TORe: Argon plasma mucosal coagulation alone; CT: Conventional therapy; ft-TORe: full-thickness suturing plus argon plasma mucosal coagulation.