Suppr超能文献

普萘洛尔与内镜下静脉曲张结扎术用于肝硬化食管静脉曲张一级预防的比较:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Propranolol versus endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal varices in cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Süffert Leonardo Corrêa, Beis Luis Pedro Possapp, Padilha Isabella Heringer, de Abreu Henrique Steffens, de Souza Jesuély Spieckert, Galvão Victor Alves, Friedrich Frederico, da Silva Marcelo Campos Appel

机构信息

School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, 6681 Ipiranga Av, Partenon, Porto Alegre, RS, 90619-900, Brazil.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding Center, Hospital Geral Clériston Andrade, Feira de Santana, Brazil.

出版信息

Hepatol Int. 2025 Sep 19. doi: 10.1007/s12072-025-10903-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown similar efficacy between nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in preventing esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. However, the comparative effectiveness between propranolol (PPL) and EVL remains uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluated both strategies.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPL and EVL for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Outcomes were evaluated using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed by the I statistic. Meta-regressions were conducted based on Child-Pugh classification and presence of ascites. All statistical analyses were performed using RStudio version 4.4.2.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were included, comprising 1345 patients: 664 (49.4%) received EVL and 681 (50.6%) PPL. EVL was more effective in preventing esophageal variceal hemorrhage (RR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.02-1.91; p = 0.035; I = 8.5%). No differences were found in variceal bleeding-related deaths (RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.76-2.15; p = 0.351; I = 0%), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.14; p = 0.503; I = 0%), or in the incidence of adverse events (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.59-2.46; p = 0.612; I = 84.7%).

CONCLUSION

EVL was superior in preventing esophageal variceal bleeding. Such results suggest that not all NSBBs provide equivalent efficacy in primary prophylaxis, reinforcing the need for further studies to confirm these findings.

摘要

背景

多项研究表明,在预防肝硬化患者食管静脉曲张出血方面,非选择性β受体阻滞剂(NSBBs)和内镜下静脉曲张结扎术(EVL)具有相似的疗效。然而,普萘洛尔(PPL)与EVL之间的比较效果仍不确定。本荟萃分析对这两种策略进行了评估。

方法

检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane中心,以查找比较PPL和EVL对肝硬化患者食管静脉曲张出血进行一级预防的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI)评估结果,并通过I统计量评估异质性。基于Child-Pugh分类和腹水情况进行荟萃回归分析。所有统计分析均使用RStudio 4.4.2版本进行。

结果

纳入了14项RCT,共1345例患者:664例(49.4%)接受了EVL,681例(50.6%)接受了PPL。EVL在预防食管静脉曲张出血方面更有效(RR:1.40;95%CI:1.02-1.91;p = 0.035;I = 8.5%)。在静脉曲张出血相关死亡(RR:1.28;95%CI:0.76-2.15;p = 0.351;I = 0%)、全因死亡率(RR:0.93;95%CI:0.76-1.14;p = 0.503;I = 0%)或不良事件发生率(RR:1.20;95%CI:0.59-2.46;p = 0.612;I = 84.7%)方面未发现差异。

结论

EVL在预防食管静脉曲张出血方面更具优势。这些结果表明,并非所有NSBBs在一级预防中都具有同等疗效,这进一步凸显了需要进行更多研究来证实这些发现。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验