Cargando…

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND: Adding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shi, Keda, Shen, Zeren, Zhu, Guiqi, Meng, Fansheng, Gu, Mengli, Ji, Feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5395769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28424073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0610-0
_version_ 1783229931083268096
author Shi, Keda
Shen, Zeren
Zhu, Guiqi
Meng, Fansheng
Gu, Mengli
Ji, Feng
author_facet Shi, Keda
Shen, Zeren
Zhu, Guiqi
Meng, Fansheng
Gu, Mengli
Ji, Feng
author_sort Shi, Keda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Adding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers through random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: Different databases were searched for controlled trials comparing dual therapy versus epinephrine monotherapy or epinephrine combined with another second modality until September, 30 2016. We estimated the ORs for rebleeding, surgery and mortality among different treatments. Adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen eligible articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The addition of mechanical therapy (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.07–0.52 and OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01–0.50, respectively) after epinephrine injection significantly reduced the probability of rebleeding and surgery. Similarly, patients who received epinephrine plus thermal therapy showed a significantly decreased rebleeding rate (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.10–0.91), as well as a non-significant reduction in surgery (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.16–1.20). Although differing, epinephrine plus mechanical therapy did not provide a significant reduction in rebleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.19–2.22) and surgery (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03–1.73) compared to epinephrine plus thermal therapy. Sclerosant failed to confer further benefits and was ranked highest among the 5 treatments in relation to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical therapy was the most appropriate modality to add to epinephrine injection. Epinephrine plus thermal coagulation was effective for controlling high risk bleeding ulcers. There was no further benefit with sclerosants with regard to rebleeding or surgery, and sclerosants were also associated with more adverse events than any other modality. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-017-0610-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5395769
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53957692017-04-20 Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers Shi, Keda Shen, Zeren Zhu, Guiqi Meng, Fansheng Gu, Mengli Ji, Feng BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUND: Adding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers through random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: Different databases were searched for controlled trials comparing dual therapy versus epinephrine monotherapy or epinephrine combined with another second modality until September, 30 2016. We estimated the ORs for rebleeding, surgery and mortality among different treatments. Adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen eligible articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The addition of mechanical therapy (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.07–0.52 and OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01–0.50, respectively) after epinephrine injection significantly reduced the probability of rebleeding and surgery. Similarly, patients who received epinephrine plus thermal therapy showed a significantly decreased rebleeding rate (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.10–0.91), as well as a non-significant reduction in surgery (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.16–1.20). Although differing, epinephrine plus mechanical therapy did not provide a significant reduction in rebleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.19–2.22) and surgery (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03–1.73) compared to epinephrine plus thermal therapy. Sclerosant failed to confer further benefits and was ranked highest among the 5 treatments in relation to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical therapy was the most appropriate modality to add to epinephrine injection. Epinephrine plus thermal coagulation was effective for controlling high risk bleeding ulcers. There was no further benefit with sclerosants with regard to rebleeding or surgery, and sclerosants were also associated with more adverse events than any other modality. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-017-0610-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5395769/ /pubmed/28424073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0610-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shi, Keda
Shen, Zeren
Zhu, Guiqi
Meng, Fansheng
Gu, Mengli
Ji, Feng
Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers
title Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers
title_full Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers
title_fullStr Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers
title_short Systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers
title_sort systematic review with network meta-analysis: dual therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5395769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28424073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0610-0
work_keys_str_mv AT shikeda systematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisdualtherapyforhighriskbleedingpepticulcers
AT shenzeren systematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisdualtherapyforhighriskbleedingpepticulcers
AT zhuguiqi systematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisdualtherapyforhighriskbleedingpepticulcers
AT mengfansheng systematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisdualtherapyforhighriskbleedingpepticulcers
AT gumengli systematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisdualtherapyforhighriskbleedingpepticulcers
AT jifeng systematicreviewwithnetworkmetaanalysisdualtherapyforhighriskbleedingpepticulcers