Suppr超能文献

失代偿期肝硬化患者食管静脉曲张出血的治疗:网状荟萃分析。

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.

Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 10;4(4):CD013155. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013155.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

摘要

背景

大约 40% 到 95% 的肝硬化患者有食管静脉曲张。大约 15% 到 20% 的食管静脉曲张在诊断后约 1 至 3 年内出血。有多种不同的治疗方法可供选择,包括内镜下套扎术、曲张静脉结扎术、生长抑素类似物、血管加压素类似物和气囊填塞。然而,这些治疗方法的个体和相对益处和危害存在不确定性。

目的

通过网络荟萃分析比较肝硬化失代偿患者食管静脉曲张出血的不同初始治疗的益处和危害;并根据其益处和危害对急性出血性食管静脉曲张的不同治疗方法进行排名。

检索方法

我们检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、Science Citation Index Expanded、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台和试验登记处,以确定截至 2019 年 12 月 17 日的肝硬化和急性食管静脉曲张出血患者的随机临床试验(RCT)。

选择标准

我们仅纳入了在肝硬化和急性食管静脉曲张出血的成年人中进行的 RCT(无论语言、盲法或状态如何)。我们排除了仅出血来自胃静脉曲张的 RCT、治疗失败(难治性出血)的 RCT、纳入试验前已实现初始止血的 RCT 以及先前已接受过肝移植的 RCT。

数据收集和分析

我们使用 OpenBUGS 软件进行了网络荟萃分析,采用贝叶斯方法,并根据国家卫生和保健卓越决策支持单位指南,使用基于可用病例分析的比值比(OR)和速率比(RR)来计算治疗差异。我们还根据相同的代码和相同的技术细节,从 RCT 中进行了直接比较。

主要结果

我们共纳入了 52 项 RCT(4580 名参与者)。48 项试验(4042 名参与者)纳入了综述中的一项或多项比较。提供信息的试验包括因不同病因导致的肝硬化患者以及有或没有既往出血史的患者。我们纳入了评估至 6 周的结局。所有试验均存在高偏倚风险。共有 19 种干预措施在试验中进行了比较(硬化疗法、生长抑素类似物、血管加压素类似物、硬化疗法加生长抑素类似物、曲张静脉结扎术、气囊填塞、生长抑素类似物加曲张静脉结扎术、硝酸盐加血管加压素类似物、无活性干预、硬化疗法加曲张静脉结扎术、气囊填塞加硬化疗法、气囊填塞加生长抑素类似物、气囊填塞加血管加压素类似物、曲张静脉结扎术加血管加压素类似物、气囊填塞加硝酸盐加血管加压素类似物、气囊填塞加曲张静脉结扎术、门腔分流术、硬化疗法加经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)和硬化疗法加血管加压素类似物)。当干预措施与硬化疗法的参考治疗相比有差异时,我们报告了主要和次要结局的效应估计值,但当没有证据表明干预措施与硬化疗法的参考治疗存在差异时,我们报告了其他主要和次要结局的结果,而没有报告效应估计值,以便简洁地总结结果。总体而言,在随访期间(3 天至 6 周),接受硬化疗法(由于这是试验中最常见的比较治疗方法,因此被选为参考治疗)的试验参与者中有 15.8%死亡。基于中等确定性证据,生长抑素类似物单独治疗的死亡率高于硬化疗法(OR 1.57,95%CrI 1.04 至 2.41;网络估计值;直接比较:4 项试验;353 名参与者),血管加压素类似物单独治疗的死亡率高于硬化疗法(OR 1.70,95%CrI 1.13 至 2.62;网络估计值;直接比较:2 项试验;438 名参与者)。没有试验报告健康相关的生活质量。基于低确定性证据,接受气囊填塞加硬化疗法的人比仅接受硬化疗法的人有更多严重不良事件(OR 4.23,95%CrI 1.22 至 17.80;直接估计值;1 项 RCT;60 名参与者)。基于中等确定性证据,接受血管加压素类似物单独治疗和接受曲张静脉结扎术的人比仅接受硬化疗法的人不良事件更少(RR 0.59,95%CrI 0.35 至 0.96;网络估计值;直接比较:1 项 RCT;219 名参与者;和 RR 0.40,95%CrI 0.21 至 0.74;网络估计值;直接比较:1 项 RCT;77 名参与者)。基于低确定性证据,接受硬化疗法加生长抑素类似物的人比仅接受硬化疗法的人发生症状性再出血的比例更小(OR 0.21,95%CrI 0.03 至 0.94;直接估计值;1 项 RCT;105 名参与者)。证据表明,在以硬化疗法为对照干预的其他比较中,干预措施的效果存在很大的不确定性。

作者结论

基于中等确定性证据,生长抑素类似物单独治疗和血管加压素类似物单独治疗(联合支持治疗)可能导致死亡率增加,与内镜下硬化疗法相比。基于中等确定性证据,与内镜下硬化疗法相比,血管加压素类似物单独治疗和曲张静脉结扎术单独治疗可能导致不良事件减少。基于低确定性证据,气囊填塞加硬化疗法可能与硬化疗法相比导致严重不良事件显著增加。基于低确定性证据,硬化疗法加生长抑素类似物可能与硬化疗法相比导致症状性再出血显著减少。在其余比较中,与硬化疗法相比,干预措施的效果存在很大的不确定性。

相似文献

1
Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 10;4(4):CD013155. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013155.pub2.
3
Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 6;4(4):CD013121. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013121.pub2.
4
Nutritional supplementation for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 19;7(7):CD013157. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013157.pub2.
5
Lifestyle modifications for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 11;6(6):CD013156. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013156.pub2.
6
Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis B infection: an attempted network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 21;3(3):CD011645. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011645.pub2.
7
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
8
Maintenance immunosuppression for adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 31;3(3):CD011639. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011639.pub2.
9
Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis C infection: an attempted network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 13;3(3):CD011644. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011644.pub2.
10
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.

引用本文的文献

2
Role of Virtual Ruler-Based Diameter Measurement in Endoscopic Therapy for Cirrhotic Esophageal Varices: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Nov 29;2024:8823825. doi: 10.1155/cjgh/8823825. eCollection 2024.
3
Endoscopic ultrasound in portal hypertension: navigating venous hemodynamics and treatment efficacy.
Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2024 Sep 12;12:goae082. doi: 10.1093/gastro/goae082. eCollection 2024.
4
The Prediction and Treatment of Bleeding Esophageal Varices in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Review.
Cureus. 2024 Mar 8;16(3):e55786. doi: 10.7759/cureus.55786. eCollection 2024 Mar.
7
Deep learning to predict esophageal variceal bleeding based on endoscopic images.
J Int Med Res. 2023 Oct;51(10):3000605231200371. doi: 10.1177/03000605231200371.
8
Data visualisation approaches for component network meta-analysis: visualising the data structure.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Sep 15;23(1):208. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02026-z.

本文引用的文献

1
Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 6;4(4):CD013121. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013121.pub2.
5
Treatment for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 12;9(9):CD013103. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013103.pub2.
7
Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.018. Epub 2019 May 2.
8
Top research priorities in liver and gallbladder disorders in the UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 7;9(3):e025045. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025045.

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