1.
Nonsurgical Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
Jing L, Zhang Q, Chang Z, Liu H, Shi X, Li X, Wang J, Mo Y, Zhang X, Ma L, et al
Journal of clinical gastroenterology. 2020
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nonsurgical secondary prophylaxis interventions for esophageal varices (EV) rebleeding in cirrhotic patients using network meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Secondary prophylaxis of EV rebleeding in cirrhosis is searched on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The quality of literatures was extracted by 2 independent investigators according to the requirements of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.0. Meta-analysis was performed on Review Manager 5.3 software for the incidence of cirrhosis EV rebleeding, rebleeding-related mortality, and overall mortality; and STATA 15.1 software was used for network meta-analysis. RESULTS In all, 57 randomized controlled trials were reviewed. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL)+argon plasma coagulation has not been recommended by guidelines, and it is rarely used; the number of existing studies and the sample size are small. Considering poor stability of the combined results, these studies were excluded; 55 literatures were included. In terms of reducing the incidence of rebleeding, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) (94.3%) was superior to EBL+endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) (84.4%), EIS+β-blockers (77.9%), EBL (59.8%), EBL+β-blockers+isosorbide-5-mononitrate (52.7%), EBL+β-blockers (51.4%), EIS (34.2%), β-blockers+isosorbide-5-mononitrate (23.7%), β-blockers (20.8%), and placebo (0.8%). In reducing rebleeding-related mortality, TIPS SUCRA (87.2%) was more efficacious than EBL+EIS (83.5%), EIS (47.9%), EBL+β-blockers (47.4%), β-blockers (41.8%), EBL (34.5%), and placebo (7.6%). In reducing overall mortality, TIPS SUCRA (81.1%) was superior to EBL+EIS (68.9%), EIS+β-blockers (59.2%), EBL+β-blockers (55.4%), EIS (48.8%), EBL (48.7%), β-blockers (34.2%), placebo (3.6%). CONCLUSIONS TIPS was more effective in reducing the incidence of cirrhosis EV rebleeding, rebleeding-related mortality, and overall mortality in cirrhosis. Combined with the above results, TIPS is more likely to be recommended as a secondary prophylaxis intervention for EV in cirrhosis.
2.
Restrictive vs liberal transfusion for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Wang J, Bao YX, Bai M, Zhang YG, Xu WD, Qi XS
World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2013;19((40):):6919-27.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) between patients receiving restrictive and liberal transfusion. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were employed to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials regarding the outcome of UGIB after restrictive or liberal transfusion. Primary outcomes were death and rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were length of hospitalization, amount of blood transfused, and hematocrit and hemoglobin at discharge or after expansion. RESULTS Overall, 4 papers were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of death was significantly lower in patients receiving restrictive transfusion than those receiving liberal transfusion (OR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.31-0.87, P = 0.01). The incidence of rebleeding was lower in patients receiving restrictive transfusion than those receiving liberal transfusion, but this difference did not reach any statistical significance (OR: 0.26, 95%CI: 0.03-2.10, P = 0.21). Compared with those receiving liberal transfusion, patients receiving restrictive transfusion had a significantly shorter length of hospitalization (standard mean difference: -0.17, 95%CI: -0.30--0.04, P = 0.009) and a significantly smaller amount of blood transfused (standard mean difference: -0.74, 95%CI: -1.15--0.32, P = 0.0005) with a lower hematocrit and hemoglobin level at discharge or after expansion. CONCLUSION Restrictive transfusion should be employed in patients with UGIB.