首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Oncotarget >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
【2h】

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

机译:联合治疗与药物治疗内镜下静脉曲张结扎或仅经颈静脉肝内门体分流术在食管静脉曲张破裂出血的二级预防中:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:肝硬化和静脉曲张破裂出血的患者再出血的风险增加。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估联合治疗(药物治疗和内镜下静脉曲张结扎术(EVL))与单纯药物治疗,EVL或经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)相比在预防再出血和死亡率方面的临床疗效。截至2016年11月,对MEDLINE,EMBASE和Cochrane对照试验注册进行文献检索,确定了相关的随机对照试验。使用Stata 12.0进行数据分析。关于总死亡率,联合治疗与EVL,药物治疗和TIPS一样有效(相对风险(RR)= 0.62,95%置信区间(CI):0.36-1.08,RR = 1.05,95%CI:0.68-1.63,和RR = 1.39,95%CI:0.92-2.09)。联合疗法在降低血液相关死亡率方面与单独使用EVL和药物疗法一样有效(RR = 0.43,95%CI:0.15-1.25,RR = 0.42,95%CI:0.17-1.06),而TIPS比联合疗法更有效治疗(RR = 5.66,95%CI:1.02-31.40)。再出血也是如此;联合疗法比单独使用EVL和药物疗法更有效(RR = 0.57,95%CI:0.41-0.79,RR = 0.65,95%CI:0.48-0.88),而TIPS比联合疗法更有效(RR = 9.42, 95%CI:2.99-29.65)。最后,关于食管静脉曲张再出血,联合治疗与单独使用EVL一样有效(RR = 0.59,95%CI:0.33-1.06),比单独使用药物疗法更有效(RR = 0.58,95%CI:0.40-0.85),尽管效果不如TIPS(RR = 2.20,95%CI:1.22-3.99)。建议将TIPS作为食管静脉曲张破裂出血二级预防的首选治疗方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号