Skip to main content

The comparative effectiveness of bariatric operations versus GLP-1 RAs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In brief

Bariatric surgery cuts major cardiovascular events by about 40% versus GLP-1 drugs

A meta-analysis of six observational cohorts (208,751 patients) found that metabolic-bariatric surgery reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events by roughly 40% compared with GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy. Surgery also lowered hemoglobin A1C by about 1.3 percentage points, while the mortality benefit was a non-significant trend. These data suggest surgery may offer stronger heart and glucose protection, though prospective trials are needed.

Journal
Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery (Q1)
Published
29 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review of cohort studies
Evidence level
Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2a)
Authors
Chantal Campbell, Matthew Mansoor, Callum Eley, Silas Nann, Harald Puhalla
PMID
42660781
DOI
10.1016/j.soard.2026.07.012

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global health crisis associated with increased morbidity and mortality, primarily due to cardiometabolic complications such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. While glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have gained traction as pharmacologic interventions for weight loss and glycemic control, metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) remains a more established modality with durable long-term outcomes. Direct comparative effectiveness data evaluating their relative associations with mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and glycemic control remain limited. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize observational comparative effectiveness evidence evaluating mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and glycemic outcomes among patients with obesity treated with MBS versus GLP-1 RA therapy. SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational comparative effectiveness studies. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on observational comparative effectiveness cohort studies evaluating outcomes among patients with obesity treated with either MBS or GLP-1 RAs. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. A systematic search of Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted in February 2025 to identify studies reporting all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or hemoglobin A1C outcomes. Pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Six retrospective cohort studies involving 208,751 patients were included. In pooled analysis, MBS was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GLP-1 RA therapy (RR = .59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .46-.77). For all-cause mortality, MBS was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward lower risk compared with GLP-1 RA therapy (RR = .66; 95% CI: .41-1.07). The pooled WMD in final A1C favored MBS over GLP-1 RA therapy (WMD = -1.31%; 95% CI: -1.66 to .96). CONCLUSIONS: Both MBS and GLP-1 RA therapies provide important cardiometabolic benefits for individuals with obesity. MBS was associated with more favorable cardiovascular and glycemic outcomes, with a nonsignificant trend toward reduced all-cause mortality. Both treatment strategies remain important components of contemporary obesity management.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.