AIM: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of β-adrenergic blocker plus 5-isosorbide mononitrate (BB + ISMN) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) on prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding. METHODS: Ra...AIM: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of β-adrenergic blocker plus 5-isosorbide mononitrate (BB + ISMN) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) on prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of BB + ISMN and EBL on prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding were gathered from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry and China Biological Medicine database between January 1980 and August 2007. Data from five trials were extracted and pooled. The analyses of the available data using the Revman 4.2 software were based on the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. In comparison with BB + ISMN with EBL in prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding, there was no significant difference in the rate of rebleeding [relative risk (RR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-1.00; P = 0.05], bleeding-related mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.31-1.42; P = 0.40), overall mortality (RR, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.61-1.08; P = 0.15) and complications (RR, 1.26; 95% CI: 0.93-1.70; P = 0.13). CONCLUSION:In the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding, BB + ISMN are as effective as EBL. There are few complications with the two treatment modalities. Both BB + ISMN and EBL would be considered as the first-line therapy in the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding.展开更多
<strong>Objective</strong><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><strong>:</strong> To compare the effective...<strong>Objective</strong><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><strong>:</strong> To compare the effectiveness, safety and client acceptability of concurrent application of transcervical Foley catheter with vaginal ISMN-sustained release (SR) 60 mg tablet versus transcervical Foley catheter alone for pre-induction cervical ripening in women who are undergoing Vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Method: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">A prospective single blind randomized control study w</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">as carried out including 110 pregnant women who had unfavorable cervix (MBS less than 6) at 40 weeks and 3 days of gestation. The two groups received either the trans-cervical foley catheter with a vaginal ISMN 60 mg sustained release (SR) tablet on 40 weeks and 3 days (Treatment arm 1, n = 57), or trans-cervical Foley alone on 40 weeks and 3 days (Treatment arm 2, n = 53). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results</span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">: At 40 weeks + 3 days gestation</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">, </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the mean age, mean parity and the mean modified Bishop Score (MBS) were comparable among the two treatment groups. Majority (n = 98, 89.1%) remained without spontaneously establishing labour at 24 hours of intervention. The difference in mean MBS at 40 weeks + 4 days (24-hours following the intervention) in the two groups was statistically not significant (P > 0.05). The group who received concurrent ISMN vaginal tablets achieved a higher number of successful VBACs (n = 33, 62.3%) over the group who received the Foley catheter only method (n = 29, 50.9%)</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">, </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">however, not statistically significant (P > 0.05). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusions: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The concurrent use of vaginal ISMN tablets (60</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mg SR) with a transcervical Foley catheter failed to show higher effectiveness compared to a transcervical Foley catheter alone as an induction method.</span></span></span>展开更多
文摘AIM: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of β-adrenergic blocker plus 5-isosorbide mononitrate (BB + ISMN) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) on prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of BB + ISMN and EBL on prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding were gathered from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry and China Biological Medicine database between January 1980 and August 2007. Data from five trials were extracted and pooled. The analyses of the available data using the Revman 4.2 software were based on the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. In comparison with BB + ISMN with EBL in prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding, there was no significant difference in the rate of rebleeding [relative risk (RR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-1.00; P = 0.05], bleeding-related mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.31-1.42; P = 0.40), overall mortality (RR, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.61-1.08; P = 0.15) and complications (RR, 1.26; 95% CI: 0.93-1.70; P = 0.13). CONCLUSION:In the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding, BB + ISMN are as effective as EBL. There are few complications with the two treatment modalities. Both BB + ISMN and EBL would be considered as the first-line therapy in the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding.
文摘<strong>Objective</strong><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><strong>:</strong> To compare the effectiveness, safety and client acceptability of concurrent application of transcervical Foley catheter with vaginal ISMN-sustained release (SR) 60 mg tablet versus transcervical Foley catheter alone for pre-induction cervical ripening in women who are undergoing Vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Method: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">A prospective single blind randomized control study w</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">as carried out including 110 pregnant women who had unfavorable cervix (MBS less than 6) at 40 weeks and 3 days of gestation. The two groups received either the trans-cervical foley catheter with a vaginal ISMN 60 mg sustained release (SR) tablet on 40 weeks and 3 days (Treatment arm 1, n = 57), or trans-cervical Foley alone on 40 weeks and 3 days (Treatment arm 2, n = 53). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results</span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">: At 40 weeks + 3 days gestation</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">, </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the mean age, mean parity and the mean modified Bishop Score (MBS) were comparable among the two treatment groups. Majority (n = 98, 89.1%) remained without spontaneously establishing labour at 24 hours of intervention. The difference in mean MBS at 40 weeks + 4 days (24-hours following the intervention) in the two groups was statistically not significant (P > 0.05). The group who received concurrent ISMN vaginal tablets achieved a higher number of successful VBACs (n = 33, 62.3%) over the group who received the Foley catheter only method (n = 29, 50.9%)</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">, </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">however, not statistically significant (P > 0.05). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusions: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The concurrent use of vaginal ISMN tablets (60</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">mg SR) with a transcervical Foley catheter failed to show higher effectiveness compared to a transcervical Foley catheter alone as an induction method.</span></span></span>