Self-expanding metal stents versus TIPS in treatment of refractory bleeding esophageal varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

自膨式金属支架与经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)治疗难治性食管静脉曲张出血的疗效比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

Background and study aims  Refractory and recurrent esophageal variceal (EV) bleeding can be life threatening. Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) have been used as a "bridge" therapy. However, their role in the treatment protocol is not established due to paucity in data. Methods  We searched multiple databases from inception through May 2019 to identify studies that reported on SEMS and TIPS in refractory EV hemorrhage. Our primary goals were to analyze and compare the pooled all-cause mortality, immediate bleeding control and rebleeding rates. Results  Five hundred forty-seven patients from 21 studies were analyzed (SEMS: 12 studies, 176 patients; TIPS: 9 studies, 398 patients). The pooled rate of all-cause mortality with SEMS was 43.6 % (95 % CI 28.6-59.8, I (2)  = 38) and with TIPS was 27.9 % (95 % CI 16.3-43.6, I (2)  = 91). The pooled rate of immediate bleeding control with SEMS was 84.5 % (95 % CI 74-91.2, I (2)  = 40) and with TIPS was 97.9 % (95 % CI 87.7-99.7, I (2)  = 0). The pooled rate of rebleeding with SEMS was 19.4 % (95 % CI 11.9-30.4, I (2)  = 32) and with TIPS was 8.8 % (95 % CI 4.8-15.7, I (2)  = 40). Conclusion  Use of SEMS in refractory EV hemorrhage demonstrates acceptable immediate bleeding control with good technical success rate. Mortality and rebleeding rates were lesser with TIPS, however, its superiority and/ or inferiority cannot be validated due to limitations in the comparison methodology.

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。