Limits...
Low risk of bacteremia after endoscopic variceal therapy for esophageal varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jia Y, Dwivedi A, Elhanafi S, Ortiz A, Othman M, Zuckerman M - Endosc Int Open (2015)

Bottom Line: Binomial distribution was used to compute variance for each study.Random effects models were used as the final model for estimating the effect size and 95 % confidence interval.Adjusted effects were obtained using meta-regression analysis.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Gastroenterology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background and study aims: Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) are the main therapeutic procedures for the emergency treatment and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices in cirrhotics. Post-endoscopic bacteremia has been reported after EVS and EVL, but data on the frequency of bacteremia are conflicting. This study aims to provide incidences of bacteremia after EVS and EVL in different settings through meta-analysis.

Methods: Only prospective or randomized studies were included in this meta-analysis. Binomial distribution was used to compute variance for each study. Random effects models were used as the final model for estimating the effect size and 95 % confidence interval. Adjusted effects were obtained using meta-regression analysis.

Results: Nineteen prospective studies involving 1001 procedures in 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis on the risk of bacteremia after EVS or EVL in cirrhotics with esophageal varices. The frequency of bacteremia after endoscopic variceal therapy was 13 %. The frequency of bacteremia after EVS (17 %) was higher than after EVL (6 %) with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.106). The frequency of bacteremia after elective EVS (14 %) was significantly less than after emergency EVS (22 %) (P < 0.001). The frequency of bacteremia after elective EVL (7.6 %) was not significantly different from after emergency EVL (3.2 %) (P = 0.850).

Conclusions: The incidence of bacteremia is low in patients with cirrhosis and varices after esophageal variceal therapy. These results are consistent with our current guidelines that antibiotic prophylaxis before endoscopic variceal therapy is only necessary for bleeding patients.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

 Flowchart for article selection from the search strategy.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4612236&req=5

FI205-1:  Flowchart for article selection from the search strategy.

Mentions: The flow chart of the selected articles is shown in Fig. 1. A total of 19 articles from the three digital dissertation databases were eligible for this study. Of these, four were randomized clinical trials 7171819, 12 were non-randomized studies with a control group 81120212223242526272829, and three were non-randomized studies without a control group 4910. According to Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment, all of the included studies received more than 7 scores. Thus, a total of 19 studies involving 1001 procedures in 587 patients reporting the frequency of bacteremia post-endoscopy treatment in patients with cirrhosis and varices, and published between 1983 and 2011 were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1). The basic characteristics of the selected studies are included in Table 1 with quality scores based on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment. All patients had portal hypertension, with the most common underlying etiology of cirrhosis being alcohol and viral infection.


Low risk of bacteremia after endoscopic variceal therapy for esophageal varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jia Y, Dwivedi A, Elhanafi S, Ortiz A, Othman M, Zuckerman M - Endosc Int Open (2015)

 Flowchart for article selection from the search strategy.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4612236&req=5

FI205-1:  Flowchart for article selection from the search strategy.
Mentions: The flow chart of the selected articles is shown in Fig. 1. A total of 19 articles from the three digital dissertation databases were eligible for this study. Of these, four were randomized clinical trials 7171819, 12 were non-randomized studies with a control group 81120212223242526272829, and three were non-randomized studies without a control group 4910. According to Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment, all of the included studies received more than 7 scores. Thus, a total of 19 studies involving 1001 procedures in 587 patients reporting the frequency of bacteremia post-endoscopy treatment in patients with cirrhosis and varices, and published between 1983 and 2011 were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1). The basic characteristics of the selected studies are included in Table 1 with quality scores based on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment. All patients had portal hypertension, with the most common underlying etiology of cirrhosis being alcohol and viral infection.

Bottom Line: Binomial distribution was used to compute variance for each study.Random effects models were used as the final model for estimating the effect size and 95 % confidence interval.Adjusted effects were obtained using meta-regression analysis.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Division of Gastroenterology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background and study aims: Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) are the main therapeutic procedures for the emergency treatment and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices in cirrhotics. Post-endoscopic bacteremia has been reported after EVS and EVL, but data on the frequency of bacteremia are conflicting. This study aims to provide incidences of bacteremia after EVS and EVL in different settings through meta-analysis.

Methods: Only prospective or randomized studies were included in this meta-analysis. Binomial distribution was used to compute variance for each study. Random effects models were used as the final model for estimating the effect size and 95 % confidence interval. Adjusted effects were obtained using meta-regression analysis.

Results: Nineteen prospective studies involving 1001 procedures in 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis on the risk of bacteremia after EVS or EVL in cirrhotics with esophageal varices. The frequency of bacteremia after endoscopic variceal therapy was 13 %. The frequency of bacteremia after EVS (17 %) was higher than after EVL (6 %) with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.106). The frequency of bacteremia after elective EVS (14 %) was significantly less than after emergency EVS (22 %) (P < 0.001). The frequency of bacteremia after elective EVL (7.6 %) was not significantly different from after emergency EVL (3.2 %) (P = 0.850).

Conclusions: The incidence of bacteremia is low in patients with cirrhosis and varices after esophageal variceal therapy. These results are consistent with our current guidelines that antibiotic prophylaxis before endoscopic variceal therapy is only necessary for bleeding patients.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus