Dataset Information

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage are at increased risk of rebleeding. We performed a meta-analysis toassess the clinical efficacy of combination therapy (pharmacotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)) compared with pharmacotherapy, EVL, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone in the prevention of rebleeding and mortality. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, up until November 2016, identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Data analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Regarding overall mortality, combination therapy was as effective as EVL, pharmacotherapy, and TIPS (relative risk (RR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-1.08, RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, and RR=1.39, 95% CI: 0.92-2.09, respectively). Combination therapy was as effective as EVL and pharmacotherapy alone in reducing blood-related mortality (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.15-1.25, and RR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17-1.06), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=5.66, 95% CI: 1.02-31.40). This was also the case for rebleeding; combination therapy was more effective than EVL and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.79, and RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=9.42, 95% CI: 2.99-29.65). Finally, regarding rebleeding from esophageal varices, combination therapy was as effective as EVL alone (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.06) and was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85), although was less effective than TIPS (RR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.99). TIPS was recommended as the first choice of therapy in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding.

SUBMITTER: Lin LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5593651 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lin Lu-Lu LL Du Shi-Ming SM Fu Yan Y Gu Hui-Yun HY Wang Lei L Jian Zhi-Yuan ZY Shen Xian-Feng XF Luo Jie J Zhang Chao C

Oncotarget 20170524 34

Patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage are at increased risk of rebleeding. We performed a meta-analysis toassess the clinical efficacy of combination therapy (pharmacotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)) compared with pharmacotherapy, EVL, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone in the prevention of rebleeding and mortality. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, up until November 2016, identified rele ...[more]

PMID: 28915680

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBleeding esophageal varices has been studied extensively, but bleeding gastric varices (BGV) has received much less investigation. However, BGV has been reported in ≤ 30% of patients with acute variceal bleeding. In our studies of 1,836 bleeding cirrhotics, 12.7% were bleeding from gastric varices. BGV mortality rate of 45-55% has been reported. The BGV literature has mainly involved retrospective case reports, often with short-term follow-up.ObjectiveWe sought to describe the results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) in unselected, consecutive patients with BGV comparing endoscopic therapy (ET) with portacaval shunt (PCS; n = 518), and later comparing emergency transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS; n = 70).Design, setting, and participantsInitially, our RCT involved 518 patients with BGV comparing ET with direct PCS regarding control of bleeding, mortality rate, and disability. When entry of patients ended, the RCT was expanded to compare emergency TIPS with EPCS (n = 70). This RCT of BGV was separate from our other RCTs of bleeding esophageal varices.InterventionsInitially, ET was compared with PCS. In the second part of our RCT, emergency TIPS was compared with emergency PCS (EPCS).Main outcome measuresOutcomes were survival, control of bleeding, portal-systemic encephalopathy (PSE), quality of life, and direct costs of care. In the RCT of ET versus PCS, 28 and 30%, respectively, were in Child class C. In the expanded RCT of TIPS versus EPCS, 40 and 41%, respectively, were in Child class C. Permanent control of BGV was achieved in 97-100% of patients treated by emergency or elective PCS, compared with 27-29% by ET. TIPS was even less effective, achieving long-term control of BGV in only 6%. Survival rates after PCS were greater at all time intervals and in all Child classes (P < .001). Repeated episodes of PSE occurred in 50% of TIPS patients, 16-17% treated by ET, and 8-11% treated by PCS. Shunt stenosis or occlusion occurred in 67% of TIPS patients, in contrast with 0-2% of PCS patients.ConclusionThese results support the conclusion that PCS is uniformly effective, whereas ET and TIPS are not very effective.

Dataset Information

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets