Cargando…

Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cyanoacrylate (CYA), coil embolization, and/or combination thereof are available EUS-guided therapies for the treatment of gastric varices (GV). The primary aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of EUS-guided inter...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCarty, Thomas R., Bazarbashi, Ahmad Najdat, Hathorn, Kelly E., Thompson, Christopher C., Ryou, Marvin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7038733/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31417066
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_37_19
_version_ 1783500702313611264
author McCarty, Thomas R.
Bazarbashi, Ahmad Najdat
Hathorn, Kelly E.
Thompson, Christopher C.
Ryou, Marvin
author_facet McCarty, Thomas R.
Bazarbashi, Ahmad Najdat
Hathorn, Kelly E.
Thompson, Christopher C.
Ryou, Marvin
author_sort McCarty, Thomas R.
collection PubMed
description Cyanoacrylate (CYA), coil embolization, and/or combination thereof are available EUS-guided therapies for the treatment of gastric varices (GV). The primary aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of EUS-guided interventions for the treatment of GV. Individualized search strategies were developed for PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from inception through November 2018 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This cumulative meta-analysis was performed using calculating pooled proportions. Measured outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and rate of rebleeding or reintervention. Comparative subgroup analyses were performed for three treatment cohorts (EUS-guided CYA injection, EUS-guided coil embolization + CYA injection, and EUS-guided coil injection alone). Heterogeneity was assessed with I(2) statistics. Eleven studies (n = 536 patients; 62.20% of males) were included. The mean age was 58.21 ± 4.15 years with an average follow-up of 12.93 ± 7.69 months. Overall technical success, clinical success, and adverse events for EUS treatments was 100% ([95% confidence interval [CI] 98–100]; I(2) = 30.54%), 97% ([95% CI 92–100]; I(2) = 59.99%), and 14% ([95% CI 6–23]; I(2) = 82.23%), respectively. On subgroup analysis, EUS-guided CYA + coil embolization resulted in a better technical and clinical success compared to CYA alone (100% vs. 97%; P < 0.001 and 98% vs. 96%; P < 0.001) and coil embolization alone (99% vs. 97%; P < 0.001 and 96% vs. 90%; P < 0.001). CYA + coil embolization also resulted in lower adverse event rates compared to CYA alone (10% vs. 21%; P < 0.001), and comparable rates to coil embolization alone (10% vs. 3%; P = 0.057). EUS-guided treatment overall appears to be an effective and safe modality for GV. Among a variety of EUS-therapies available, EUS combination therapy with coil embolization + CYA injection appears to be a preferred strategy for the treatment of GV over EUS-based monotherapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7038733
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70387332020-03-12 Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis McCarty, Thomas R. Bazarbashi, Ahmad Najdat Hathorn, Kelly E. Thompson, Christopher C. Ryou, Marvin Endosc Ultrasound Review Article Cyanoacrylate (CYA), coil embolization, and/or combination thereof are available EUS-guided therapies for the treatment of gastric varices (GV). The primary aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of EUS-guided interventions for the treatment of GV. Individualized search strategies were developed for PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from inception through November 2018 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This cumulative meta-analysis was performed using calculating pooled proportions. Measured outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and rate of rebleeding or reintervention. Comparative subgroup analyses were performed for three treatment cohorts (EUS-guided CYA injection, EUS-guided coil embolization + CYA injection, and EUS-guided coil injection alone). Heterogeneity was assessed with I(2) statistics. Eleven studies (n = 536 patients; 62.20% of males) were included. The mean age was 58.21 ± 4.15 years with an average follow-up of 12.93 ± 7.69 months. Overall technical success, clinical success, and adverse events for EUS treatments was 100% ([95% confidence interval [CI] 98–100]; I(2) = 30.54%), 97% ([95% CI 92–100]; I(2) = 59.99%), and 14% ([95% CI 6–23]; I(2) = 82.23%), respectively. On subgroup analysis, EUS-guided CYA + coil embolization resulted in a better technical and clinical success compared to CYA alone (100% vs. 97%; P < 0.001 and 98% vs. 96%; P < 0.001) and coil embolization alone (99% vs. 97%; P < 0.001 and 96% vs. 90%; P < 0.001). CYA + coil embolization also resulted in lower adverse event rates compared to CYA alone (10% vs. 21%; P < 0.001), and comparable rates to coil embolization alone (10% vs. 3%; P = 0.057). EUS-guided treatment overall appears to be an effective and safe modality for GV. Among a variety of EUS-therapies available, EUS combination therapy with coil embolization + CYA injection appears to be a preferred strategy for the treatment of GV over EUS-based monotherapy. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7038733/ /pubmed/31417066 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_37_19 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Spring Media Publishing Co. Ltd http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Review Article
McCarty, Thomas R.
Bazarbashi, Ahmad Najdat
Hathorn, Kelly E.
Thompson, Christopher C.
Ryou, Marvin
Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort combination therapy versus monotherapy for eus-guided management of gastric varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7038733/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31417066
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_37_19
work_keys_str_mv AT mccartythomasr combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforeusguidedmanagementofgastricvaricesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bazarbashiahmadnajdat combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforeusguidedmanagementofgastricvaricesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hathornkellye combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforeusguidedmanagementofgastricvaricesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT thompsonchristopherc combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforeusguidedmanagementofgastricvaricesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ryoumarvin combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforeusguidedmanagementofgastricvaricesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis