结肠憩室出血的内镜治疗方式:直接和网络荟萃分析的系统回顾。

IF 1.8 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Zahid Ijaz Tarar, Mustafa Gandhi, Faisal Inayat, Umer Farooq, Baltej Singh, Ahtshamullah Chaudhry, Aun Muhammad, Ahmad Zain, Faisal Kamal
{"title":"结肠憩室出血的内镜治疗方式:直接和网络荟萃分析的系统回顾。","authors":"Zahid Ijaz Tarar, Mustafa Gandhi, Faisal Inayat, Umer Farooq, Baltej Singh, Ahtshamullah Chaudhry, Aun Muhammad, Ahmad Zain, Faisal Kamal","doi":"10.4253/wjge.v17.i8.109313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is a leading cause of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage that has a high risk of recurrence. The endoscopic clipping and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) methods are widely used for hemostasis in patients with CDB. Endoscopic detachable snare ligation (EDSL) has also become an increasingly common treatment option. The data remain inconsistent regarding the comparative efficacy of these endoscopic therapies in achieving initial hemostasis and reduction of early and late rebleeding rates.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To study the effectiveness and complications of endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL for CDB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for clinical trials to find studies that reported CDB and endoscopic clipping, EBL, or EDSL as treatment methods. The pooled estimates of initial hemostasis, early and late rebleeding, and the need for transarterial embolization or surgery between these groups were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 28 studies with 5224 patients. Of these, 4526 had active CDB and required one of the three endoscopic interventions. The pooled prevalence of early rebleeding was 23.5%, 10.7%, and 10.6% in the endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL groups, respectively. Patients who underwent endoscopic clipping had a significantly higher rate of early rebleeding compared to those who received EBL [odds ratio (OR) = 3.76 (95%CI: 2.13-6.63)] and EDSL (OR = 3.30, 95%CI: 1.28-8.53). There was no difference in the initial hemostasis between the three groups. The pooled prevalence of late rebleeding was 27.2% in the clipping, followed by 13.8% in the EBL and 2.7% in the EDSL group. Compared to 2.6% in the EBL group, 4.0% of patients who received endoscopic clipping subsequently underwent surgery or transarterial embolization. These results were consistent in the network meta-analysis. Based on the ranking of the indirect comparison of modalities, the snare technique was better at achieving initial hemostasis and had a lower late rebleeding rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this direct and indirect pairwise comparison suggest that EDSL is superior to endoscopic clipping and EBL in achieving initial hemostasis and lowering the rate of late rebleeding in patients with CDB.</p>","PeriodicalId":23953,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"17 8","pages":"109313"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12362541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic treatment modalities for colonic diverticular bleeding: A systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Zahid Ijaz Tarar, Mustafa Gandhi, Faisal Inayat, Umer Farooq, Baltej Singh, Ahtshamullah Chaudhry, Aun Muhammad, Ahmad Zain, Faisal Kamal\",\"doi\":\"10.4253/wjge.v17.i8.109313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is a leading cause of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage that has a high risk of recurrence. The endoscopic clipping and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) methods are widely used for hemostasis in patients with CDB. Endoscopic detachable snare ligation (EDSL) has also become an increasingly common treatment option. The data remain inconsistent regarding the comparative efficacy of these endoscopic therapies in achieving initial hemostasis and reduction of early and late rebleeding rates.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To study the effectiveness and complications of endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL for CDB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for clinical trials to find studies that reported CDB and endoscopic clipping, EBL, or EDSL as treatment methods. The pooled estimates of initial hemostasis, early and late rebleeding, and the need for transarterial embolization or surgery between these groups were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 28 studies with 5224 patients. Of these, 4526 had active CDB and required one of the three endoscopic interventions. The pooled prevalence of early rebleeding was 23.5%, 10.7%, and 10.6% in the endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL groups, respectively. Patients who underwent endoscopic clipping had a significantly higher rate of early rebleeding compared to those who received EBL [odds ratio (OR) = 3.76 (95%CI: 2.13-6.63)] and EDSL (OR = 3.30, 95%CI: 1.28-8.53). There was no difference in the initial hemostasis between the three groups. The pooled prevalence of late rebleeding was 27.2% in the clipping, followed by 13.8% in the EBL and 2.7% in the EDSL group. Compared to 2.6% in the EBL group, 4.0% of patients who received endoscopic clipping subsequently underwent surgery or transarterial embolization. These results were consistent in the network meta-analysis. Based on the ranking of the indirect comparison of modalities, the snare technique was better at achieving initial hemostasis and had a lower late rebleeding rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this direct and indirect pairwise comparison suggest that EDSL is superior to endoscopic clipping and EBL in achieving initial hemostasis and lowering the rate of late rebleeding in patients with CDB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"17 8\",\"pages\":\"109313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12362541/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v17.i8.109313\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v17.i8.109313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:结肠憩室出血(CDB)是下消化道出血的主要原因,具有很高的复发风险。内窥镜夹持和内窥镜带结扎(EBL)方法被广泛应用于CDB患者的止血。内镜下可拆卸陷阱结扎术(EDSL)也成为越来越普遍的治疗选择。关于这些内镜治疗在实现初始止血和减少早期和晚期再出血率方面的比较疗效,数据仍然不一致。目的:探讨内窥镜夹持、EBL和EDSL治疗CDB的疗效及并发症。方法:我们对PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、Embase、谷歌Scholar和Cochrane数据库进行了系统的临床试验检索,以找到报道CDB和内镜夹持、EBL或EDSL作为治疗方法的研究。计算了两组患者的初始止血、早期和晚期再出血、经动脉栓塞或手术需求的汇总估计。结果:我们分析了28项研究,5224例患者。其中4526例CDB活跃,需要三种内窥镜干预中的一种。内镜夹持组、EBL组和EDSL组早期再出血的总发生率分别为23.5%、10.7%和10.6%。与接受EBL (OR = 3.76 (95%CI: 2.13-6.63))和EDSL (OR = 3.30, 95%CI: 1.28-8.53)的患者相比,接受内镜夹持的患者早期再出血率明显更高。三组患者初始止血效果无明显差异。clipping组晚期再出血的总发生率为27.2%,EBL组为13.8%,EDSL组为2.7%。与EBL组2.6%相比,4.0%接受内窥镜夹持的患者随后接受手术或经动脉栓塞。这些结果在网络meta分析中是一致的。根据间接比较方式的排名,圈套技术在实现初始止血方面较好,后期再出血率较低。结论:本研究的直接和间接两两比较结果表明,EDSL在实现CDB患者初始止血和降低晚期再出血率方面优于内镜夹持和EBL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Endoscopic treatment modalities for colonic diverticular bleeding: A systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses.

Endoscopic treatment modalities for colonic diverticular bleeding: A systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses.

Endoscopic treatment modalities for colonic diverticular bleeding: A systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses.

Endoscopic treatment modalities for colonic diverticular bleeding: A systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses.

Background: Colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is a leading cause of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage that has a high risk of recurrence. The endoscopic clipping and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) methods are widely used for hemostasis in patients with CDB. Endoscopic detachable snare ligation (EDSL) has also become an increasingly common treatment option. The data remain inconsistent regarding the comparative efficacy of these endoscopic therapies in achieving initial hemostasis and reduction of early and late rebleeding rates.

Aim: To study the effectiveness and complications of endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL for CDB.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for clinical trials to find studies that reported CDB and endoscopic clipping, EBL, or EDSL as treatment methods. The pooled estimates of initial hemostasis, early and late rebleeding, and the need for transarterial embolization or surgery between these groups were calculated.

Results: We analyzed 28 studies with 5224 patients. Of these, 4526 had active CDB and required one of the three endoscopic interventions. The pooled prevalence of early rebleeding was 23.5%, 10.7%, and 10.6% in the endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL groups, respectively. Patients who underwent endoscopic clipping had a significantly higher rate of early rebleeding compared to those who received EBL [odds ratio (OR) = 3.76 (95%CI: 2.13-6.63)] and EDSL (OR = 3.30, 95%CI: 1.28-8.53). There was no difference in the initial hemostasis between the three groups. The pooled prevalence of late rebleeding was 27.2% in the clipping, followed by 13.8% in the EBL and 2.7% in the EDSL group. Compared to 2.6% in the EBL group, 4.0% of patients who received endoscopic clipping subsequently underwent surgery or transarterial embolization. These results were consistent in the network meta-analysis. Based on the ranking of the indirect comparison of modalities, the snare technique was better at achieving initial hemostasis and had a lower late rebleeding rate.

Conclusion: The findings of this direct and indirect pairwise comparison suggest that EDSL is superior to endoscopic clipping and EBL in achieving initial hemostasis and lowering the rate of late rebleeding in patients with CDB.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
5.00%
发文量
1164
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信