We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Covered TIPS for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Medicine (Baltimore) 2016 December
BACKGROUND: In the era of bare stents, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is the second-line choice of therapy for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in liver cirrhosis. In the era of covered stents, the role of TIPS should be re-evaluated.
AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of covered TIPS versus the traditional first-line therapy (i.e, drug plus endoscopic therapy) for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in liver cirrhosis.
METHODS: All relevant randomized controlled trials were searched via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P values were calculated for the cumulative risk and overall risk, respectively. Heterogeneity among studies was also calculated.
RESULTS: Three of 111 retrieved papers were eligible. Among them, the proportion of patients who were switched from drug plus endoscopic therapy to TIPS was 16% to 25%. The risk of bias was relatively low in all included randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses demonstrated that the covered TIPS group had a similar overall survival (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.55-1.28, P = 0.41; OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.59-1.69, P = 0.99), a significantly lower risk of variceal rebleeding (HR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.18-0.48, P < 0.00001; OR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.12-0.46, P < 0.0001), and a similar risk of hepatic encephalopathy (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.72-2.53, P = 0.36; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.54-3.04, P = 0.57). In most of meta-analyses, the heterogeneity among studies was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with drug plus endoscopic therapy, covered TIPS had a significant benefit of preventing from variceal rebleeding, but did not increase the overall survival or risk of hepatic encephalopathy.
AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of covered TIPS versus the traditional first-line therapy (i.e, drug plus endoscopic therapy) for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in liver cirrhosis.
METHODS: All relevant randomized controlled trials were searched via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P values were calculated for the cumulative risk and overall risk, respectively. Heterogeneity among studies was also calculated.
RESULTS: Three of 111 retrieved papers were eligible. Among them, the proportion of patients who were switched from drug plus endoscopic therapy to TIPS was 16% to 25%. The risk of bias was relatively low in all included randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses demonstrated that the covered TIPS group had a similar overall survival (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.55-1.28, P = 0.41; OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.59-1.69, P = 0.99), a significantly lower risk of variceal rebleeding (HR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.18-0.48, P < 0.00001; OR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.12-0.46, P < 0.0001), and a similar risk of hepatic encephalopathy (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.72-2.53, P = 0.36; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.54-3.04, P = 0.57). In most of meta-analyses, the heterogeneity among studies was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with drug plus endoscopic therapy, covered TIPS had a significant benefit of preventing from variceal rebleeding, but did not increase the overall survival or risk of hepatic encephalopathy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app