Dataset Information

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic treatment for duodenal variceal bleeding: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Duodenal varix is a rare condition that involves massive bleeding, diagnostic difficulties, and a high rate of rebleeding and mortality. The purpose of this study was to systematically review endoscopic treatment for duodenal variceal bleeding to evaluate its effectiveness and safety. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to 21 November 2019. Ninety-two studies containing 156 patients were finally included, and individual data from 101 patients (mean age: 52.67 ± 13.82 years, male: 64.4%) were collected and further analyzed. We used an analysis of variance and χ2 or Fisher's exact tests to analyze individual data from 101 patients. The cause of duodenal variceal bleeding was cirrhosis-related intrahepatic portal hypertension (IPH) in 76.2% of patients. The overall rates of initial hemostasis and treatment success of endoscopic treatment for duodenal variceal bleeding were 89.1 and 81.2%, respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (1.0, 12.0) months. The overall rates of rebleeding and mortality were 8.9 and 13.9%, respectively. Among a variety of endoscopic treatments available, only the initial hemostasis rate was significantly different between the endoscopic injection sclerotherapy and endoscopic tissue adhesive (ETA) groups (72.7 vs. 94.7%, P = 0.023); differences in treatment success, rebleeding, mortality, and adverse events were not statistically significant among the four groups. Endoscopic intervention is a feasible, well tolerated, and effective modality for the treatment of duodenal variceal bleeding. Among the variety of endoscopic treatments available, ETA with cyanoacrylate may be preferable for duodenal variceal bleeding.

SUBMITTER: Yipeng W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7908861 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPortosystemic shunts, including surgical portosystemic shunts and transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), may have benefit over endoscopic therapy (ET) for treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension; however, whether there being a survival benefit among them remains unclear. This study was to compare the effect of three above-mentioned therapies on the short-term and long-term survival in patient with cirrhosis.MethodsUsing the terms "variceal hemorrhage or variceal bleeding or variceal re-bleeding" OR "esophageal and gastric varices" OR "portal hypertension" and "liver cirrhosis," the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and the references of identified trials were searched for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language with full texts or abstracts (last search June 2017). Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random effects model by Review Manager. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for the assessment of the risk of bias.ResultsTwenty-six publications comprising 28 RCTs were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 2845 patients: 496 (4 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or TIPS, 1244 (9 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or ET, and 1105 (15 RCTs) underwent either TIPS or ET. There was no significant difference in overall mortality and 30-day or 6-week survival among three interventions. Compared with TIPS and ET, separately, surgical portosystemic shunts were both associated with a lower bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01-0.32; P < 0.001; RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06-0.51, P < 0.005) and rate of variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10-0.51, P < 0.001; RR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04-0.24, P < 0.001), without a significant difference in the rate of postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.25-1.00, P = 0.14; RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.59-2.01, P = 0.78). TIPS showed a trend toward lower variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.36-0.58, P < 0.001), but a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy than ET (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34-2.36, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe overall analysis revealed that there seem to be no short-term and long-term survival advantage, but surgical portosystemic shunts are with the lowest bleeding-related mortality among the three therapies. Surgical portosystemic shunts may be the most effective without an increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and TIPS is superior to ET but at the cost of a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. However, some of findings should be interpreted with caution due to the lower level of evidence and the existence of significant heterogeneity.

Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic treatment is recommended for the management of esophageal varices. However, variceal recurrence or rebleeding is common after endoscopic variceal eradication. Our study aimed to systematically evaluate the prevalence of esophageal collateral veins (ECVs) and the association of ECVs with recurrence of esophageal varices or rebleeding from esophageal varices after endoscopic treatment.MethodsWe searched the relevant literature through the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Prevalence of paraesophageal veins (para-EVs), periesophageal veins (peri-EVs), and perforating veins (PVs) were pooled. Risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively. A random-effects model was employed. Heterogeneity among studies was calculated.ResultsAmong the 532 retrieved papers, 28 were included. The pooled prevalence of para-EVs, peri-EVs, and PVs in patients with esophageal varices was 73%, 88%, and 54%, respectively. The pooled prevalence of para-EVs and PVs in patients with recurrence of esophageal varices was 87% and 62%, respectively. The risk for recurrence of esophageal varices was significantly increased in patients with PVs (OR = 9.79, 95% CI: 1.95-49.22, P = 0.006 for eight case-control studies), but not in those with para-EVs (OR = 4.26, 95% CI: 0.38-38.35, P = 0.24 for four case-control studies; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: 0.83-3.97, P = 0.14 for three cohort studies). Patients with para-EVs had a significantly higher incidence of rebleeding from esophageal varices (RR = 13.00, 95% CI: 2.43-69.56, P = 0.003 for two cohort studies). Statistically significant heterogeneity was notable across the meta-analyses.ConclusionsECVs are common in patients with esophageal varices. Identification of ECVs could be helpful for predicting the recurrence of esophageal varices or rebleeding from esophageal varices after endoscopic treatment.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic treatment for duodenal variceal bleeding: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure