Short-course vasoconstrictors are adequate for esophageal variceal bleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Jen-Hao Yeh, Gin-Ho Lo, Ru-Yi Huang, Chih-Wen Lin, Wen-Lun Wang, Daw-Shyong Perng, Jen-Hao Yeh, Gin-Ho Lo, Ru-Yi Huang, Chih-Wen Lin, Wen-Lun Wang, Daw-Shyong Perng

Abstract

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with vasoconstrictors has been recommended for acute esophageal variceal bleeding. However, the optimal duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of short-course vasoconstrictors (≤3 days) versus standard combination (3-5 days). A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases with subsequent meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were 5-day rebleeding, mortality, and treatment failure rates. A risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval is used for outcome comparison. Nine randomized studies with 838 patients were included. The initial hemostasis (96.8% vs 97.4%, p = 0.919), 5-day rebleeding (11.2% vs 8.3%, RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.62-1.76), mortality (0 vs 1.3%, RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.10-2.39), and treatment failure (7.4% vs 5.9%, RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.48-2.49) were similar in both groups. Subgroup analysis suggested EVL alone had no significant difference of 5-day re-bleeding (15.9% vs 7.1%, RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 0.87-5.77), mortality (0 vs 0.7%, RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.08-6.03), treatment failure (9.6% vs 6.7%, RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.54-3.75) compared to standard combination. Clinical heterogeneity was found for the rebleeding rate for the subgroup during sensitivity analysis. EVL with short-course vasoconstrictors is highly efficacious for esophageal variceal bleeding. Further studies are required to determine the genuine need of subsequent vasoconstrictor after successful EVL.

Keywords: Acute variceal bleeding; esophageal variceal ligation; meta-analysis; vasoconstrictor.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit