Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2000
Decision analysis of prophylactic treatment for patients with high-risk esophageal varices.
Клинический случайСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Aoki N, Kajiyama T, Beck J R, Cone R W, Soma K, Fukui T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision analyses were conducted to quantify the uncertainty and to identify important factors in selection of prophylactic therapy for patients with esophageal varices.
METHODS: A Markov model compared variceal ligation, beta-blockers, and "watchful waiting" strategies in terms of bleeding-free life years. Transition probabilities were obtained from meta-analyses of published data. A hypothetical 50-year-old white man with high-risk esophageal varices and cirrhosis served as the prototypical baseline case. Traditional n-way sensitivity analyses were applied to clarify the influence of each factor, and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to investigate clinical uncertainty.
RESULTS: Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that 77.0% of hypothetical cases had more bleeding-free life years after variceal ligation, whereas 23% had more when treated with beta-blockers. On the basis of one-way sensitivity analyses, only 2 factors (variceal bleeding rates after ligation and treatment with beta-blockers) influenced the strategy choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Variceal ligation is an effective prophylactic therapy in many cases, but nearly one quarter of patients with high-risk esophageal varices and cirrhosis may benefit more from prophylactic treatment with beta-blockers. Additional clinical studies identifying key variceal bleeding risk factors may lead to more effective clinical decision making for these patients.
METHODS: A Markov model compared variceal ligation, beta-blockers, and "watchful waiting" strategies in terms of bleeding-free life years. Transition probabilities were obtained from meta-analyses of published data. A hypothetical 50-year-old white man with high-risk esophageal varices and cirrhosis served as the prototypical baseline case. Traditional n-way sensitivity analyses were applied to clarify the influence of each factor, and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to investigate clinical uncertainty.
RESULTS: Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that 77.0% of hypothetical cases had more bleeding-free life years after variceal ligation, whereas 23% had more when treated with beta-blockers. On the basis of one-way sensitivity analyses, only 2 factors (variceal bleeding rates after ligation and treatment with beta-blockers) influenced the strategy choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Variceal ligation is an effective prophylactic therapy in many cases, but nearly one quarter of patients with high-risk esophageal varices and cirrhosis may benefit more from prophylactic treatment with beta-blockers. Additional clinical studies identifying key variceal bleeding risk factors may lead to more effective clinical decision making for these patients.