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