Laine L, Cook D
Department of Medicine, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles 90033, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 1995 Aug 15;123(4):280-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-4-199508150-00007.
To compare the effect of endoscopic ligation with that of sclerotherapy in the treatment of patients with bleeding esophageal varices.
Strategies to identify published and unpublished research included searches of computerized bibliographic and scientific citations, review of citations in relevant primary articles, searches of services providing information on unpublished studies, contact with primary investigators and the ligation equipment manufacturer, and review of proceedings from pertinent scientific meetings.
From 158 potentially relevant articles, duplicate independent review identified 7 relevant randomized trials that compared endoscopic ligation with sclerotherapy for the treatment of patients with bleeding esophageal varices.
Independent, duplicate data abstraction of the population, intervention, outcome, and methodologic quality of the trials was done.
Ligation therapy compared with sclerotherapy reduced the rebleeding rate (odds ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.74]), the mortality rate (odds ratio, 0.67 [CI, 0.46 to 0.98]), and the rate of death due to bleeding (odds ratio, 0.49 [CI, 0.24 to 0.996]). Four patients would need to be treated with ligation instead of sclerotherapy to avert one rebleeding episode, and 10 would need to be treated with ligation instead of sclerotherapy to prevent one death. Esophageal strictures occurred less frequently with ligation (odds ratio, 0.10 [CI, 0.03 to 0.29]), but no significant differences were seen between treatments for pulmonary infections or bacterial peritonitis. Additionally, the number of endoscopic treatment sessions required to achieve variceal obliteration was lower with ligation than with sclerotherapy.
On the basis of lower rates of rebleeding, mortality, and complications and the need for fewer endoscopic treatments, ligation should be considered the endoscopic treatment of choice for patients with esophageal variceal bleeding.
比较内镜下套扎术与硬化疗法治疗食管静脉曲张出血患者的效果。
识别已发表和未发表研究的策略包括检索计算机化的书目和科学引文、查阅相关原始文章中的引文、检索提供未发表研究信息的服务机构、联系主要研究者和套扎设备制造商,以及查阅相关科学会议的会议记录。
从158篇潜在相关文章中,经重复独立评审确定了7项相关随机试验,这些试验比较了内镜下套扎术与硬化疗法治疗食管静脉曲张出血患者的效果。
对试验的人群、干预措施、结局和方法学质量进行了独立、重复的数据提取。
与硬化疗法相比,套扎疗法降低了再出血率(比值比,0.52[95%可信区间,0.37至0.74])、死亡率(比值比,0.67[可信区间,0.46至0.98])和出血导致的死亡率(比值比,0.49[可信区间,0.24至0.996])。需要用套扎术而非硬化疗法治疗4例患者才能避免1次再出血事件,需要用套扎术而非硬化疗法治疗10例患者才能预防1例死亡。套扎术导致食管狭窄的发生率较低(比值比,0.10[可信区间,0.03至0.29]),但在肺部感染或细菌性腹膜炎的治疗方面,两种治疗方法之间未观察到显著差异。此外,实现静脉曲张闭塞所需的内镜治疗次数,套扎术比硬化疗法少。
基于较低的再出血率、死亡率和并发症发生率以及较少的内镜治疗需求,套扎术应被视为食管静脉曲张出血患者内镜治疗的首选方法。