A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

EUS-guided coiling plus glue injection compared with endoscopic glue injection alone in endoscopic treatment for gastric varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided coil plus glue injection is a newer, effective method for treating gastric varices, but limited comparisons exist with endoscopic glue injection (EGI).
  • A systematic review analyzed six studies involving 445 patients, showing EUS significantly lowers rebleeding and reintervention rates compared to EGI.
  • No major differences were found between the two methods regarding pulmonary embolism, mortality, technical success, fever, or abdominal pain.

Article Abstract

Background And Aims: EUS-guided coil plus glue injection has emerged as a safe and effective modality for gastric varices (GVs). Very few studies have compared EUS embolization with the direct endoscopic glue injection (EGI) technique for its safety and effectiveness. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of EUS-guided coil plus glue injection versus EGI.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that compared EUS and EGI for GVs, and 1454 articles were screened following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Endpoints were pulmonary embolism, recurrent bleeding rate, reintervention rate, technical success, abdominal pain, and mortality rate. A restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used for binary endpoints. Heterogeneity was evaluated through Cochrane's Q statistic and Higgins and Thompson's I statistic. Significance was defined as P < .05.

Results: We included 6 studies with 445 patients treated for GVs. Mean patient age was 49 years, and 43% were women. EUS was associated with a reduction in recurrent bleeding rate (OR, .22; 95% CI, .11-.45; P < .001; I = 0) and reintervention rate (OR, .29; 95% CI, .09-.89; P = .03; I = 49%) compared with EGI. There were no differences between groups in pulmonary embolism (OR, .34; 95% CI, .10-1.18; P = .09; I = 0%), mortality rate (OR, .78; 95% CI, .28-2.13; P = .63; I = 0%), technical success (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, .60-20.49; P = .16; I = 0%), fever (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, .42-5.21 days; P = .5; I = 0%), and abdominal pain (OR, .96; 95% CI, .31-2.95; P = .94; I = 32%).

Conclusions: In patients with GVs, EUS-guided coil plus glue injection is associated with lower recurrent bleeding and reintervention rates than EGI with no difference in pulmonary embolization rate, abdominal pain, technical success, and mortality rate.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.10.005DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

glue injection
24
p = i =
24
eus-guided coil
12
coil glue
12
recurrent bleeding
12
technical success
12
abdominal pain
12
mortality rate
12
rate 95%
12
endoscopic glue
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!