World journal of gastroenterology · 2015
Endoscopic variceal ligation compared with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Dai Cong, Liu Wei-Xin, Jiang Min, Sun Ming-Jun
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the effect of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with that of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) in the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of multiple online electronic databases. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of combined studies for the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding between EVL and EIS.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 1236 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rebleeding rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR=0.68, 95%CI: 0.57-0.81). The variceal eradication rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group (RR=1.06, 95%CI: 1.01-1.12). There was no significant difference about mortality rate between the EVL group and EIS group (RR=0.95, 95%CI: 0.77-1.17). The rate of complications in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR=0.28, 95%CI: 0.13-0.58).
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis has found that EVL is better than EIS in terms of the lower rates of rebleeding, complications, and the higher rate of variceal eradication. Therefore, EVL is the first choice for esophageal variceal bleeding.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of multiple online electronic databases. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of combined studies for the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding between EVL and EIS.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 1236 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rebleeding rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR=0.68, 95%CI: 0.57-0.81). The variceal eradication rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group (RR=1.06, 95%CI: 1.01-1.12). There was no significant difference about mortality rate between the EVL group and EIS group (RR=0.95, 95%CI: 0.77-1.17). The rate of complications in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR=0.28, 95%CI: 0.13-0.58).
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis has found that EVL is better than EIS in terms of the lower rates of rebleeding, complications, and the higher rate of variceal eradication. Therefore, EVL is the first choice for esophageal variceal bleeding.