+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Meta-analysis: endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding



Meta-analysis: endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding



Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 21(4): 347-361



The treatment effects of primary prophylactic endoscopic variceal ligation are unclear. To compare the treatment effects of endoscopic variceal ligation and beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. In addition, a subgroup analysis was done with the purpose to delineate differences in the effects of intervention that were biologically based. We performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials, which compared the treatment effects of endoscopic variceal ligation with beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. Of the 955 articles screened, eight randomized-controlled trials including 596 subjects (285 with endoscopic variceal ligation and 311 with beta-blockers) were analysed. Outcomes measures evaluated were first gastrointestinal bleed, first variceal bleed, all-cause deaths, bleed-related deaths and severe adverse events. The measure of association employed was relative risk; with heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses. Variceal obliteration was obtained in 261 (91.6%) patients and target beta-blockers therapy was achieved in 294 (94.5%) patients (P = 0.19). Endoscopic variceal ligation compared with beta-blockers significantly reduced rates of first gastrointestinal bleed by 31% (RR, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.96; P = 0.03; NNTB = 15) and first variceal bleed by 43% (RR, 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38-0.85; P = 0.0067; NNTB = 11). All-cause deaths and bleed-related deaths were unaffected (RR, 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.36; P = 0.81 and RR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.44-1.61; P = 0.60 respectively). Severe adverse events were significantly less in endoscopic variceal ligation compared with beta-blockers (RR, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; P = 0.0024; NNTB = 28). Sensitivity analysis of five trials published in peer review journals and four trials with high quality showed results similar to those seen in the primary analysis of all the eight trials, confirming stability of conclusions. Following variceal obliteration with endoscopic variceal ligation, oesophageal varices recurred in 83 (29.1%) patients. Seven (28.1%) patients bled with one fatal outcome. In subgroup analyses, endoscopic variceal ligation had significant advantage compared wtih beta-blockers in trials including < or =30% patients with alcoholic cirrhosis, >30% patients with Child Class C cirrhosis and >50% patients with large varices. In patients with cirrhosis with moderate to large varices and who have not bled, endoscopic varices ligation compared with beta-blockers significantly reduced bleeding episodes and severe adverse events, but had no effect on mortality.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 012299171

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 15709985

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02346.x


Related references

Combination of endoscopic variceal ligation plus propranolol versus endoscopic variceal ligation alone in the primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding An interim analysis. Hepatology 34(4 Pt 2): 534A, 2001

A meta-analysis of endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding. Hepatology 33(4): 802-807, 2001

Endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prophylaxis for oesophageal variceal bleeding at a Malaysian tertiary hospital. Medical Journal of Malaysia 73(6): 361-364, 2018

Pharmacotherapy alone vs endoscopic variceal ligation combination for secondary prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding: meta-analysis. Liver International 32(5): 867-869, 2012

Endoscopic variceal ligation combined with argon plasma coagulation versus ligation alone for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 29(6): 621-628, 2017

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus propranolol versus endoscopic variceal ligation alone in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. American Journal of Gastroenterology 100(4): 797-804, 2005

Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleed: Preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 14(3): 220-224, 1999

Bleeding from oesophageal ulceration induced by endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis. Gut 59(11): 1586, 2010

A randomized controlled trial of endoscopic variceal band ligation for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 8(4): 337-342, 1996

The efficacy comparison of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation and traditional, nonselective β-blockers plus endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis patients for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 31(12): 1518-1526, 2019

Sa1596 Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Variceal Ligation (EVL) for Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in an Underserved Population. Gastroenterology 150(4): S337-S338, 2016

Variceal band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention of variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 19(10): 835-845, 2007

Oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: from variceal screening to primary prophylaxis of the first oesophageal variceal bleeding. Liver International 31(1): 108-119, 2011

Endoscopic variceal band ligation compared with propranolol for prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding. Annals of Hepatology 10(2): 142-149, 2011

Endoscopic variceal ligation versus propranolol in prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 21(2): 413-419, 2006