Over-the-scope clips vs standard endoscopic interventions for first-line treatment of NVUGI bleeding: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

内镜下止血夹与标准内镜介入治疗作为非静脉曲张性上消化道出血一线治疗的比较:随机试验的荟萃分析

阅读:3

Abstract

Background and study aims Recently, over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) have been extensively studied for hemostasis of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Our goal was to compare the efficacy of OTSCs with standard endoscopic interventions (SEIs) as first-line treatments. Patients and methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing OTSCs with SEIs as first-line therapy for NVUGIB. This search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Of 819 reviewed studies, five RCTs comprising 555 patients (277 OTSCs vs. 278 SEIs) were included. The OTSC group had a lower 30-day rebleeding rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.77; I² = 0%; P = 0.004) and a higher clinical success rate (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.11-1.28; I² = 0%; P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in technical success (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.98-1.14; I² = 73%; P = 0.13), 30-day all-cause mortality (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.22-1.14; I² = 0%; P = 0.10), need for further intervention (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.43-3.47; I² = 0%; P = 0.71), or length of hospital stay (mean difference 0.31; 95% CI: -1.08- 1.70; I² = 0%; P = 0.66). Risk of bias, which was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, indicated some concerns about bias. Conclusions OTSCs are more efficient than SEIs as first-line treatment in terms of rebleeding within 30 days and clinical success rates.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。