A ten-person study found no significant fluctuations in the measured lipid and liver-test parameters after four consecutive HIFEM-plus-RF sessions; it did not show treatment of high cholesterol or liver disease.
What stable blood tests establish
These laboratory measurements address the blood markers studied over the reported follow-up. Stable values are not evidence that treatment lowers cholesterol, treats liver disease or produces a metabolic-health benefit.
Study at a glance
Design: Small, uncontrolled prospective laboratory-safety study.
Participants: 10 participants: eight women and two men; all completed follow-up.
Research protocol: Four consecutive 30-minute HIFEM+RF procedures on the same day.
Follow-up: Before treatment, one hour, 24–48 hours and one month.
Evidence visual: What was tested, and when?
A sampling map, not a fabricated flat blood-test graph.
Sampling schedule
Before treatment → one hour → 24–48 hours → one month. Ten people, four sampling occasions each: not 40 patients.
Lipid tests
Total cholesterol, HDL, LDL and triglycerides. No significant fluctuation or notable deviation was reported.
Liver-related tests
AST, ALT, GGT and alkaline phosphatase. Group averages remained in the reported normal ranges.
What this means
Limited laboratory-safety evidence for the studied exposure. Not proof of cholesterol reduction, liver-disease treatment or universal same-day suitability.
Source for the visual: [S08]. Exact individual trajectories are not reproduced because the underlying timepoint dataset was not available.
A sensible question about fat-reduction treatment
Someone considering a treatment aimed at local fat may reasonably ask what happens elsewhere in the body. Does the intervention produce an important change in circulating fats or liver blood tests? A small study by Weiss examined that safety question after several same-day HIFEM-plus-RF procedures. [S08]
The important point is the purpose of the study. It was not designed to treat high cholesterol, improve liver disease or establish a metabolic-health programme. It investigated selected blood-test measurements following the studied exposure.
That distinction prevents a reassuring safety observation from turning into an unsupported claim that a body-contouring device treats a systemic condition.
For treatment background, read What is EMSCULPT NEO?. This article focuses on the specific research question.
What the participants received
Eight women and two men, aged 24 to 59 years, underwent four consecutive, 30-minute HIFEM-plus-RF procedures. Areas differed by sex and included the abdomen and different thigh regions. Blood samples were collected before treatment, one hour afterwards, 24 to 48 hours afterwards and at one month. All ten completed the planned treatments and blood draws. [S08]
The four blood-draw timepoints produced 40 sampling occasions. That does not make this a 40-person study. The participants, not the number of samples, define the size of the patient cohort.
This is also a study protocol, not a recommendation that every patient should have four consecutive treatment sessions.
Which blood tests were checked?
The lipid panel included total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. The liver-related tests included AST, ALT, GGT and alkaline phosphatase. The authors reported no significant fluctuation or notable deviation in those measured parameters, with average values remaining within the ranges they described as normal. No adverse events were reported. [S08]
The evidence summary shows the tests and the sampling schedule. It deliberately does not draw a perfectly flat laboratory curve. Exact values for each person at each visit are not available in the source used here, and an invented line would imply precision the evidence does not provide.
“No significant change” is not the same as proving zero effect
A study can fail to detect a meaningful change without proving that every possible effect has been excluded. Sample size, what was measured and when measurements were taken all affect what can be concluded.
Here, the defensible message is that the investigators did not identify a significant disturbance in the selected blood parameters during the observed period in ten participants. That is useful, bounded information. It is not a lifetime safety guarantee or proof that all combinations of treatment areas are equally suitable. [S08]
It is also not a statement that every individual laboratory value was identical before and after treatment. The visual presentation must preserve that distinction.
Does this mean EMSCULPT NEO improves cholesterol?
No. Stability of cholesterol measurements is not evidence of a cholesterol-lowering treatment effect. This paper does not support reducing prescribed medication, changing lipid monitoring or using local body contouring to manage cardiovascular risk. [S08]
Similarly, normal average liver-related tests in a small selected group do not establish treatment for fatty liver disease or suitability for someone with existing liver disease. Those are different clinical questions.
For 1EM, this is an important boundary between a body-contouring discussion and a medical metabolic-health assessment. They can exist within the same broader practice without claiming that the evidence for one automatically proves the other.
What about treating several areas in one day?
The study offers an observation about a particular same-day protocol. It does not establish an unrestricted rule that more areas are always safe, that intensity should always be maximised or that a shorter schedule is equivalent to a different course.
An individual plan should consider the actual device, applicators, treatment areas, medical history, comfort and applicable instructions. A laboratory study cannot replace those practical checks.
Ask why a same-day arrangement is being proposed and what evidence or instructions support it for the intended configuration. Convenience is a legitimate preference, but it should not be allowed to redefine the clinical evidence.
What should a patient disclose?
A clinician considering treatment needs relevant medical history, including implanted devices, recent procedures and any health issue that might affect suitability. Existing abnormal blood tests should be discussed rather than assumed to be covered by this study. [G01]
The article does not imply that everyone needs the same research blood panel before or after treatment. Testing should have a clinical reason. Equally, a person who develops concerning symptoms should not be reassured solely by the fact that ten study participants had reassuring results.
The practical 1EM takeaway
This paper contributes a small piece of safety evidence: selected lipid and liver-test measurements were stable after the studied consecutive procedures. It helps answer a specific question without pretending to answer every safety question. [S08]
A useful consultation can explain both what the data show and what remains an individual judgement. The complete funding and disclosure information was not verified from the accessible abstract, so the study is not labelled independent.
The central message is simple: the reported blood-test finding is reassuring within its scope, but it is not evidence that EMSCULPT NEO treats cholesterol, liver disease or general metabolic risk.
Frequently asked questions
Did the study show a rise in cholesterol after treatment?
The investigators reported no significant fluctuation or notable deviation in the measured lipid parameters across the study period. That describes the observed group, not a guarantee for every patient. [S08]
Did EMSCULPT NEO improve liver function?
The paper did not establish treatment of liver disease or a liver-function improvement. It found no important disturbance in the selected liver-related blood tests after the studied procedures. [S08]
Were there 40 people in the trial?
No. There were ten participants and four blood-draw timepoints. Forty sampling occasions must not be described as 40 independent patients. [S08]
Can everyone have four treatments back to back?
No. Four consecutive sessions were the study exposure, not a universal prescription. The appropriate areas, configuration and schedule require individual assessment and the applicable device instructions.
Should I stop cholesterol medication or change my blood tests?
No. This body-contouring study is not a basis for changing prescribed treatment or medical monitoring. Medication and testing decisions should be discussed with the clinician managing the relevant condition.
Sources
[S08] Weiss RA. Plasma Lipid Analysis of Simultaneous Application of Radiofrequency Synchronized With HIFEM for Fat Reduction in Same-Day Multiple Sessions. Dermatologic Surgery. 49(8):766–770. 2023. DOI: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000003843. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37294850/
[G01] US Food and Drug Administration. Non-Invasive Body Contouring Technologies. Patient information. 2026. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/aesthetic-cosmetic-devices/non-invasive-body-contouring-technologies
Practical information
Start with an individual assessment
General information cannot determine whether treatment is right for you. Request a private assessment with the 1EM team.
General educational information, not individual medical advice. Published research findings are not 1EM patient-outcome data. Suitability, experience and results vary.