European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2019
The efficacy comparison of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation and traditional, nonselective β-blockers plus endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis patients for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Jiao, Ge Ke, Chen Ling, Yang Jian-Le
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Currently, the first-line treatment regimen in cirrhotic patients for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis is still under debate.
AIM: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and traditional, nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) plus EVL in preventing variceal rebleeding.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Studies were found in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Med Online, and Wiper Database. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze the relevant data.
RESULTS: Nine trials including 802 patients were identified (402 for carvedilol and 400 for traditional NSBBs). Carvedilol was more efficacious than traditional NSBBs in decreasing the variceal rebleeding rate [odds ratio (OR): 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.75; P = 0.0003], lowering the degree of esophageal varices (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.64-7.34; P < 0.00001), decreasing the mean arterial pressure (standard mean difference: - 0.35; 95% CI: - 0.56 to - 0.14; P = 0.0009), reducing the total adverse events occurrence (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.28-0.53; P < 0.00001), and decreasing drug-related adverse events (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.56; P < 0.00001). No difference was noted between carvedilol and traditional NSBBs with respect to mortality and heart rate (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43; 1.22; P = 0.22 and standard mean difference: 0.09; 95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.30; P = 0.40, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Combined with variceal ligation, carvedilol was more effective and safer than traditional NSBBs in the prevention of rebleeding in cirrhotic patients.
AIM: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and traditional, nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) plus EVL in preventing variceal rebleeding.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Studies were found in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Med Online, and Wiper Database. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze the relevant data.
RESULTS: Nine trials including 802 patients were identified (402 for carvedilol and 400 for traditional NSBBs). Carvedilol was more efficacious than traditional NSBBs in decreasing the variceal rebleeding rate [odds ratio (OR): 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.75; P = 0.0003], lowering the degree of esophageal varices (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.64-7.34; P < 0.00001), decreasing the mean arterial pressure (standard mean difference: - 0.35; 95% CI: - 0.56 to - 0.14; P = 0.0009), reducing the total adverse events occurrence (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.28-0.53; P < 0.00001), and decreasing drug-related adverse events (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.56; P < 0.00001). No difference was noted between carvedilol and traditional NSBBs with respect to mortality and heart rate (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43; 1.22; P = 0.22 and standard mean difference: 0.09; 95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.30; P = 0.40, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Combined with variceal ligation, carvedilol was more effective and safer than traditional NSBBs in the prevention of rebleeding in cirrhotic patients.