Suppr超能文献

不同内镜治疗方法在胃食管反流病患者中的疗效:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Efficacy of different endoscopic treatments in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Street, Nanchang, 30006, China.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2021 Apr;35(4):1500-1510. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08386-1. Epub 2021 Mar 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Both transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) and radiofrequency ablation (Stretta) are representative endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but they have not been directly compared. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the comparative effects of Stretta, TIF, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of either the Stretta, TIF, or PPIs/sham procedure for GERD treatment. The NMA was conducted using frequentist methods.

RESULTS

A total of 516 participants from 10 RCTs were included in this NMA. Both Stretta (mean difference, MD - 9.77, 95% confidence interval, CI - 12.85 to - 6.70) and TIF (MD - 12.22, 95% CI - 15.93 to - 8.52) were significantly superior to PPIs at improving health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores and heartburn scores (Stretta: MD - 1.53, 95% CI - 2.98 to - 0.08; TIF: MD - 9.60, 95% CI - 17.79 to - 1.41). Stretta (MD - 3.77, 95% CI - 6.88 to - 0.65) was less effective at increasing lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure than TIF. Stretta was significantly superior to TIF (MD - 3.25, 95% CI - 5.95 to - 0.56) at improving esophageal acid exposure. Regarding the decrease in PPIs utility and esophagitis incidence, no significant differences were found between TIF and Stretta.

CONCLUSION

In terms of short-term reduction of the HRQL score and heartburn score in patients with GERD, TIF and Stretta may be comparable to each other, and both may be more effective than PPIs. TIF may increase the LES pressure in comparison with Stretta and PPIs. PPIs may reduce the percentage of time pH < 4.0 when compared with TIF. This evidence should be interpreted with caution given the small number of included studies and inherent heterogeneity. Registration No. CRD42020188345.

摘要

背景

经口无切口胃底折叠术(TIF)和射频消融术(Stretta)都是胃食管反流病(GERD)的代表性内镜治疗方法,但尚未进行直接比较。本系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA)评估了 Stretta、TIF 和质子泵抑制剂(PPIs)的比较效果。

方法

检索了 PubMed、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、Web of Science 和 Embase,以纳入比较 Stretta、TIF 或 PPI/假手术治疗 GERD 疗效的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用贝叶斯方法进行 NMA。

结果

本 NMA 共纳入 10 项 RCT 的 516 名参与者。与 PPI 相比,Stretta(平均差值,MD-9.77,95%置信区间,CI-12.85 至-6.70)和 TIF(MD-12.22,95%CI-15.93 至-8.52)均显著改善健康相关生活质量(HRQL)评分和烧心评分(Stretta:MD-1.53,95%CI-2.98 至-0.08;TIF:MD-9.60,95%CI-17.79 至-1.41)。Stretta(MD-3.77,95%CI-6.88 至-0.65)增加食管下括约肌(LES)压力的效果不如 TIF。Stretta 改善食管酸暴露的效果明显优于 TIF(MD-3.25,95%CI-5.95 至-0.56)。关于 PPI 使用率和食管炎发生率的降低,TIF 和 Stretta 之间无显著差异。

结论

在 GERD 患者短期 HRQL 评分和烧心评分降低方面,TIF 和 Stretta 可能彼此相当,且均优于 PPI。与 PPI 相比,TIF 可能会增加 LES 压力。与 TIF 相比,PPI 可能会降低 pH<4.0 的时间百分比。考虑到纳入研究数量较少且存在固有异质性,应谨慎解释这些证据。注册号:CRD42020188345。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验