Scholarlink

Background <p>Carvedilol is key for primary prophylaxis of high-risk variceal bleeding but is less studied for secondary prophylaxis with EVL. This study compares the long-term outcomes of carvedilol plus EVL versus propranolol plus EVL in secondary prophylaxis.</p> Methods <p>The long-term follow-up data regarding rebleeding, ascites recurrence, and survival of patients who were treated with EVL plus carvedilol (n = 147) or propranolol (n = 53) for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding were compared.</p> Results <p>Patients in the carvedilol group (n = 147) exhibited lower rebleeding rates (23.8% vs. 47.2%; hazard ratio(HR): 1.844; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.099–3.096; p = 0.019) and ascites rates (7.5% vs. 30.2%; HR: 2.975; 95% CI 1.349–6.557; p = 0.003) compared to the propranolol group (n = 53). Cumulative mortality rates were similar between groups (12.2% vs. 30.2%; HR: 1.292; 95% CI 0.632–2.642; p = 0.48). In patients with viral cirrhosis, carvedilol resulted in lower rebleeding rates (HR: 2.236; 95% CI 1.188–4.208; p = 0.013) and improved ascites control (HR: 3.698; 95% CI 1.363–10.032; p = 0.010). Adjusted survival curves and 1:1 propensity score matching analyses confirmed these findings.</p> Conclusions <p>Our findings suggest that carvedilol combined with EVL may reduce rebleeding and ascites recurrence compared to propranolol in patients with cirrhosis, particularly those with viral etiologies. However, the lack of mortality benefit and limited generalizability to non-viral cirrhosis necessitate further validation in prospective trials.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Long-Term Outcomes of Carvedilol Plus Endoscopic Variceal Ligation in Secondary Prophylaxis of Variceal Bleeding

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月3日

查看全文
  • Xiao Liu,
  • Yifu Xia,
  • Junyuan Zhu,
  • Xiaochen Liu,
  • Lixia Xin,
  • Guangchuan Wang,
  • Mingyan Zhang,
  • Zhen Li,
  • Guangjun Huang,
  • Chunqing Zhang

摘要

Background

Carvedilol is key for primary prophylaxis of high-risk variceal bleeding but is less studied for secondary prophylaxis with EVL. This study compares the long-term outcomes of carvedilol plus EVL versus propranolol plus EVL in secondary prophylaxis.

Methods

The long-term follow-up data regarding rebleeding, ascites recurrence, and survival of patients who were treated with EVL plus carvedilol (n = 147) or propranolol (n = 53) for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding were compared.

Results

Patients in the carvedilol group (n = 147) exhibited lower rebleeding rates (23.8% vs. 47.2%; hazard ratio(HR): 1.844; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.099–3.096; p = 0.019) and ascites rates (7.5% vs. 30.2%; HR: 2.975; 95% CI 1.349–6.557; p = 0.003) compared to the propranolol group (n = 53). Cumulative mortality rates were similar between groups (12.2% vs. 30.2%; HR: 1.292; 95% CI 0.632–2.642; p = 0.48). In patients with viral cirrhosis, carvedilol resulted in lower rebleeding rates (HR: 2.236; 95% CI 1.188–4.208; p = 0.013) and improved ascites control (HR: 3.698; 95% CI 1.363–10.032; p = 0.010). Adjusted survival curves and 1:1 propensity score matching analyses confirmed these findings.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that carvedilol combined with EVL may reduce rebleeding and ascites recurrence compared to propranolol in patients with cirrhosis, particularly those with viral etiologies. However, the lack of mortality benefit and limited generalizability to non-viral cirrhosis necessitate further validation in prospective trials.