带状结扎与硬化疗法对慢性肝病或门静脉血栓形成儿童食管静脉曲张出血的初级预防

Juan Cristóbal Gana, Lorena I Cifuentes, Daniela Gattini, Romina Torres-Robles
{"title":"带状结扎与硬化疗法对慢性肝病或门静脉血栓形成儿童食管静脉曲张出血的初级预防","authors":"Juan Cristóbal Gana,&nbsp;Lorena I Cifuentes,&nbsp;Daniela Gattini,&nbsp;Romina Torres-Robles","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD011803.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. In adults, numerous randomised clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prevention in decreasing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in children because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (27 April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of retrieved publications, and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to 2019. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harms.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to assess risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to analyse data with intention-to-treat. We planned to use Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of these two interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD011803"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD011803.pub2","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\",\"authors\":\"Juan Cristóbal Gana,&nbsp;Lorena I Cifuentes,&nbsp;Daniela Gattini,&nbsp;Romina Torres-Robles\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD011803.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. In adults, numerous randomised clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prevention in decreasing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in children because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (27 April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of retrieved publications, and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to 2019. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harms.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to assess risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to analyse data with intention-to-treat. We planned to use Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of these two interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":515753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"CD011803\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD011803.pub2\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011803.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011803.pub2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:门脉高压通常伴随晚期肝脏疾病,并经常引起危及生命的并发症,包括食管和胃肠道静脉曲张出血。静脉曲张出血常见于慢性肝病或门静脉阻塞的儿童。因此,预防十分重要。在成人中,许多随机临床试验已经证明非选择性β受体阻滞剂和内窥镜下静脉曲张结扎作为降低静脉曲张出血风险的一级预防的益处。在儿童中,带状结扎、受体阻滞剂和硬化疗法被建议作为食管静脉曲张出血初级预防的替代方法。然而,初级预防并不是目前儿童护理的标准,因为尚不清楚这些治疗方法用于儿童和青少年食管静脉曲张出血的初级预防是有益还是有害。目的:确定带状结扎与硬化治疗对慢性肝病或门静脉血栓形成的儿童和青少年食管静脉曲张出血初级预防的利弊。检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane肝胆对照试验注册库、CENTRAL、PubMed、Embase、LILACS和Science Citation Index Expanded(2020年4月27日)。我们仔细检查了检索到的出版物的参考文献列表,并对2008年至2019年主要儿科胃肠病学和肝病学会议(NASPGHAN和ESPGHAN)的摘要书籍进行了手动检索。我们检索了ClinicalTrials.gov、FDA、EMA和WHO正在进行的临床试验。没有语言或文档类型的限制。选择标准:我们计划纳入随机临床试验,而不考虑盲法、语言或发表状态,以评估利弊。如果对随机临床试验的搜索检索到准随机和观察性研究,那么我们将其通读以提取有关危害的信息。数据收集和分析:我们计划用标准Cochrane方法总结随机临床试验的数据。我们计划评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE评估每个结果证据的确定性。我们的主要结局是全因死亡率、严重不良事件和肝脏相关发病率以及生活质量。我们的次要结局是食管静脉曲张出血和不认为严重的不良事件。我们计划用意向治疗来分析数据。我们计划使用Review Manager 5来分析数据。主要结果:我们没有发现随机临床试验评估带状结扎与硬化疗法对慢性肝病或门静脉血栓形成儿童食管静脉曲张出血的初级预防。作者的结论:目前缺乏评估带状结扎与硬化疗法对慢性肝病或门静脉血栓形成儿童食管静脉曲张出血初级预防的利弊的随机临床试验。因此,需要有足够的能力和适当的设计的试验,评估带状结扎与硬化疗法对患者相关临床结果(如死亡率、生活质量、静脉曲张出血控制失败和不良事件)的利弊。除非进行这样的试验并公布结果,否则我们无法就这两种干预措施的利弊得出任何结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

Background: Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. In adults, numerous randomised clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prevention in decreasing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in children because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents.

Objectives: To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (27 April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of retrieved publications, and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to 2019. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

Selection criteria: We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harms.

Data collection and analysis: We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to assess risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to analyse data with intention-to-treat. We planned to use Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.

Main results: We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

Authors' conclusions: Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of these two interventions.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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