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.
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 LL, Du SM, Fu Y, Gu HY, Wang L, Jian ZY, Shen XF, Luo J, Zhang C
Oncotarget. 2017;8((34)):57399-57408.
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.