Endoscopic Band Ligation Versus Argon Plasma Coagulation in the Treatment of Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
BS Hirsch ◽  
IB Ribeiro ◽  
MP Funari ◽  
DTH de Moura ◽  
SE Matuguma ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (07) ◽  
pp. E1145-E1157
Author(s):  
Thomas R. McCarty ◽  
Kelly E. Hathorn ◽  
Walter W. Chan ◽  
Kunal Jajoo

Abstract Background and study aims While argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the first-line treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE), endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has shown promising results. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of EBL for the treatment of GAVE. Methods Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines through September 1, 2020. Measured outcomes included endoscopic success (defined as GAVE eradication/improvement), change in hemoglobin, transfusion dependency, number of treatment sessions, adverse events, rebleeding, and bleeding-associated mortality. Outcomes were compared among studies evaluating EBL versus APC. Results Eleven studies (n = 393; 59.39 % female; mean age 58.65 ± 8.85 years) were included. Endoscopic success was achieved in 87.84 % [(95 % CI, 80.25 to 92.78); I2 = 11.96 %] with a mean number of 2.50 ± 0.49 treatment sessions and average of 12.40 ± 3.82 bands applied. For 8 studies comparing EBL (n = 143) versus APC (n = 174), there was no difference in baseline patient characteristics. However, endoscopic success was significantly higher for EBL [OR 6.04 (95 % CI 1.97 to 18.56; P = 0.002], requiring fewer treatment sessions (2.56 ± 0.81 versus 3.78 ± 1.17; P < 0.001). EBL was also associated with a greater increase in post-procedure hemoglobin [mean difference 0.35 (95 % CI 0.07 to 0.62; P = 0.0140], greater reduction in transfusions required [mean difference –1.46 (95 % CI –2.80 to –0.12; P = 0.033], and fewer rebleeding events [OR 0.11 (95 % CI, 0.04 to 0.36); P < 0.001]. There was no difference in adverse events or bleeding-associated mortality (P > 0.050). Conclusions EBL appears to be safe and effective for treatment of GAVE, with improved outcomes when compared to APC.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document