Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG): The Evidence vs GLP-1s and Surgery

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG, sometimes marketed as the “accordion procedure” or “ESG stomach tightening”) is an incisionless weight-loss procedure: a gastroenterologist passes a suturing device down through the mouth and stitches the stomach into a narrow tube from the inside, shrinking its capacity by roughly 70% without a single external incision. For anyone weighing it against a GLP-1 like Wegovy or Zepbound, the number that matters is this: in the pivotal MERIT randomized controlled trial, ESG produced about 13.6% total body weight loss (TBWL) at 52 weeks versus 0.8% for lifestyle alone^[1] — roughly on par with once-weekly semaglutide (STEP-1: −14.9%^[9]), below tirzepatide (SURMOUNT-1: −20.9%^[10]), and well below sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass (~25–30%). Pooled meta-analysis puts ESG at 15–17% TBWL^[2] and five-year data hold near 16%^[3], with a serious-complication rate around 2%. This article lays out the evidence honestly: how ESG works, how much weight it takes off and for how long, how it stacks up against GLP-1 drugs and against surgery, the real risks, cost, reversibility, and who it actually suits.

The honest summary

• ESG works, and it has a real randomized trial behind it. The MERIT RCT (Abu Dayyeh 2022, Lancet^[1]) randomized 209 adults with class 1–2 obesity and found 13.6% TBWL at 52 weeks with ESG versus 0.8% with lifestyle counseling alone. About 77% of ESG patients reached at least 25% excess weight loss, versus 12% of controls.
• The weight loss is durable to about 5 years. A 216-patient cohort (Sharaiha 2021, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol^[3]) reported 15.9% TBWL maintained at 5 years, and MERIT showed 68% of ESG patients still holding ≥25% excess weight loss at 104 weeks^[1]. This is more durable than a gastric balloon (a 6-month device).
• It lands in the same range as semaglutide — below tirzepatide and surgery. ESG (~13.6–16% TBWL^[1][2]) is roughly comparable to semaglutide^[9], less than tirzepatide^[10], and much less than sleeve gastrectomy/bypass (~25–30%^[12]). No trial has ever compared ESG head-to-head against a GLP-1.
• It is a one-time, incisionless, potentially reversible procedure — not a lifelong prescription. Unlike a GLP-1, there is no weekly injection, no drug cost every month, and no shortage risk. The trade-off: it is an invasive endoscopic procedure done under sedation, and it is usually paid out of pocket.
• The safety profile is favorable but not zero. Pooled severe adverse events run about 2.2% (Hedjoudje 2020^[2]) — mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and peri-gastric fluid collections — with no procedure-related deaths in the major series^[1][3]. Transient pain and nausea for a few days are expected.
• Weight regain is still possible. ESG restricts the stomach, but it does not replace the ongoing behavior change that keeps weight off. Some regain is common, and ESG can be combined with a GLP-1 — ESG plus liraglutide beat ESG alone in one trial (Badurdeen 2021^[6]).
• ESG met the medical societies' bar for adoption. ESG and other endoscopic bariatric therapies were held to the ASGE/ASMBS “PIVI” thresholds (≥25% excess weight loss, at least 5% more TBWL than control)^[7][8]; ESG clears them.

What ESG actually is (and what it is not)

ESG is a form of bariatric endoscopy — weight-loss procedures done entirely through the mouth with a flexible endoscope, no laparoscopy and no incisions. Using an endoscopic suturing platform, the gastroenterologist places a series of full-thickness stitches along the greater curvature of the stomach, cinching it into a narrow sleeve-shaped tube. The result is mechanically similar in spirit to a surgical sleeve gastrectomy — a smaller stomach that fills faster — but nothing is cut away or removed. Two things drive the weight loss: restriction (you feel full on much less food) and delayed gastric emptying (food leaves the stomach more slowly, so fullness lasts).

How much weight does ESG take off? The randomized and long-term evidence

The strongest single data point is the MERIT randomized controlled trial (Abu Dayyeh 2022, Lancet^[1]), the study that moved ESG from “promising” to evidence-based. It randomized 209 adults with a BMI of 30–40 to ESG plus lifestyle or lifestyle alone:

• 13.6% total body weight loss at 52 weeks with ESG versus 0.8% with lifestyle counseling alone^[1].
• 49.2% excess weight loss (ESG) versus 3.2% (control); 77% of ESG patients reached ≥25% excess weight loss, the responder threshold, versus 12% of controls^[1].
• Durability: at 104 weeks, 68% of ESG patients still maintained ≥25% excess weight loss^[1].
• Metabolic benefit: ESG improved markers of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome versus control^[1].

Meta-analysis broadens the picture. Hedjoudje 2020 (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol^[2]) pooled 1,772 patients across 8 studies and found 15.1% TBWL at 6 months, 16.5% at 12 months, and 17.2% at 18–24 months. Large international multicenter series (Sartoretto 2018^[4]; Barrichello 2019^[5]) confirmed that these results are reproducible across many centers and operators — an important point, because a procedure that only works in the hands of one pioneering endoscopist is not a real option. And the five-year data (Sharaiha 2021^[3]) show 15.9% TBWL maintained at 5 years, with 90% and 61% of patients keeping off ≥5% and ≥10% of their body weight respectively.

ESG vs GLP-1 drugs: the comparison that actually matters

Most people researching ESG today are really asking one question: should I do this, or just take a GLP-1? Here is the honest cross-comparison — with the essential caveat that no head-to-head trial exists, so these are cross-trial numbers, not a direct contest.

The takeaways from that table:

• ESG is roughly in semaglutide's league and clearly below tirzepatide and surgery. If your target is ~15% TBWL, ESG and semaglutide get you to a similar place by very different routes^[1][9].
• The structural difference is one-time procedure vs ongoing drug. ESG is a single intervention with no monthly cost, no injections, and no supply shortages; a GLP-1 is a continuing prescription whose weight loss tends to reverse if you stop. ESG's restriction persists, though behavior still matters.
• The trade-offs run the other way too. A GLP-1 is non-invasive, is often at least partly insurance-covered, and delivers cardiometabolic benefits proven in large outcome trials; ESG is an invasive endoscopic procedure, is usually out of pocket, and its evidence base is one RCT plus cohorts rather than a decade of hard-outcome data.
• They are not mutually exclusive. Combining ESG with a GLP-1 produced more weight loss than ESG alone in a randomized study of ESG plus liraglutide (Badurdeen 2021^[6]) — a “procedure plus medication” strategy that mirrors how obesity is increasingly treated.

For the full drug-vs-procedure economics and the surgery comparison, see our bariatric surgery vs GLP-1s review and the decision guide.

Prefer a GLP-1 to a procedure? Top vetted providers

ESG vs bariatric surgery: the middle path

ESG is best understood as a middle option between drugs and surgery. Surgical sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass produce the largest, most durable weight loss (~25–30% TBWL; SLEEVEPASS and SM-BOSS randomized trials^[11][12]) and the strongest diabetes-remission data (STAMPEDE^[11]) — but they permanently alter the anatomy, carry higher procedural risk, and require general surgery. ESG gives up some of that weight-loss magnitude in exchange for being incisionless, lower-risk, reversible, and recoverable in days rather than weeks. A reasonable framing:

• Class 1–2 obesity (BMI ~30–40) who want more than a drug but less than surgery — ESG's core evidence population (MERIT^[1]).
• People who don't qualify for, or don't want, surgery — ESG extends a procedural option to lower BMIs where surgery is often not offered.
• People who want to keep every future option open — because ESG doesn't remove tissue, a surgical sleeve or bypass remains available later if needed.

Risks, recovery, and reversibility

• Serious complications are uncommon (~2%). Pooled severe adverse events were 2.2% in Hedjoudje 2020^[2] and ESG-related serious adverse events were 2% (3 of 131) in MERIT^[1], with no deaths. The five-year cohort reported 1.3% moderate adverse events and zero severe or fatal events^[3].
• The main serious risks are gastrointestinal bleeding and peri-gastric fluid collections or leaks; perforation is rare^[2]. These are far lower than the historical risks of open bariatric surgery.
• Expected, temporary side effects are abdominal pain and nausea for several days after the procedure, managed with medication; most people resume normal activity within about a week.
• Reversibility. Because ESG places sutures rather than cutting or stapling, it is generally described as reversible or revisable — the sutures can loosen or be removed, and the procedure can be redone or converted to surgery.

Cost and insurance

This is ESG's biggest practical drawback. In the United States it is typically quoted at roughly $8,000–$20,000 and is usually paid out of pocket, because most insurers still classify it as investigational and do not cover it (unlike surgical bariatric procedures, which are frequently covered when medical criteria are met). That flips the usual drug-vs-procedure math: a GLP-1 may be partly covered but costs money every month indefinitely, whereas ESG is a large one-time cost with no recurring drug bill. Run your own numbers over a realistic time horizon — see how much weight-loss surgery costs and what insurance covers. (Cost figures here are current US market ranges, not a trial-derived number.)

Who is ESG actually for?

• Adults with class 1–2 obesity (BMI ~30–40) — the MERIT population^[1] — who want a durable, one-time intervention without lifelong medication.
• People who have not tolerated or not succeeded with GLP-1s, or who cannot access or afford them long-term.
• People who want a procedure but not surgery, whether for risk, recovery time, or the wish to avoid permanently altering their anatomy.
• People willing to pay out of pocket and to keep up the behavior change that protects the result — ESG restricts the stomach, but it does not do the eating for you.

What we still don't know

• No head-to-head ESG-vs-GLP-1 randomized trial exists. Every drug-vs-procedure comparison in this article is cross-trial and should be read as directional, not definitive.
• Long-term hard-outcome data are thinner than for surgery. ESG has strong 1-to-5-year weight and metabolic data^[1][3], but nothing like the decades of mortality and diabetes-remission outcomes behind bariatric surgery^[11].
• The optimal ESG-plus-medication strategy is still being worked out. ESG plus liraglutide beat ESG alone^[6], but how ESG combines with the newer, more potent GLP-1/GIP drugs has not been established in large trials.
• Durability beyond 5 years, and real-world regain rates outside expert centers, remain to be fully characterized.

Bottom line

• ESG is an evidence-based, incisionless procedure that produces about 13.6% total body weight loss at one year in a randomized trial^[1] and holds near 16% at five years^[3] — roughly on par with semaglutide^[9], below tirzepatide^[10] and surgery^[12].
• Its defining advantage over a GLP-1 is being a one-time, no-injection, potentially reversible intervention with no monthly drug cost; its defining disadvantages are that it is invasive, usually out of pocket, and backed by less long-term outcome data than surgery.
• Serious complications are around 2%^[2], with no deaths in the major series — a favorable safety profile for a bariatric procedure.
• It suits class 1–2 obesity and people who want more than a drug but less than surgery — and it can be combined with a GLP-1 for more weight loss^[6].
• Weight regain is still possible without sustained behavior change; ESG restricts the stomach, it does not remove the need to change how you eat.

Related research

• Endoscopic weight-loss options: the overview — the pillar map of ESG, the balloon, and how they compare to GLP-1s and surgery
• ESG vs GLP-1 (semaglutide and tirzepatide) — the focused procedure-vs-drug head-to-head
• ESG vs gastric sleeve — the incisionless procedure vs the surgical sleeve gastrectomy
• Gastric balloon for weight loss — the temporary 6-month endoscopic device
• Bariatric surgery vs GLP-1s — the full drugs-vs-surgery weight-loss, cost, and outcomes comparison
• Bariatric surgery vs GLP-1: the decision guide — how to choose between the options
• What is the safest form of weight-loss surgery? — surgical sleeve, bypass, and band risk compared
• How much is weight-loss surgery? — the cost breakdown ESG competes against
• Does insurance cover weight-loss surgery? — why ESG is usually out of pocket while surgery often isn't
• GLP-1 as a bridge to bariatric surgery — sequencing drugs and procedures
• GLP-1s after bariatric surgery for weight regain — the procedure-plus-medication approach in practice

Important disclaimer. This article is educational and does not constitute medical advice. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty is an invasive procedure with real risks; suitability depends on your BMI, health, and goals, and must be assessed by a qualified bariatric endoscopist or obesity-medicine physician. Cross-trial comparisons with GLP-1 drugs and with surgery are not head-to-head and should be interpreted with care. Cost figures are current US market ranges, not trial-derived. Do not start, stop, or change any treatment based on this article. PMIDs were independently verified against the PubMed E-utilities API on 2026-07-01.

Last verified: 2026-07-01. Next review: every 12 months, or sooner if a head-to-head ESG-vs-GLP-1 trial or a major long-term ESG outcome study is published.