Background/Aims: Both proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and histamine-2-receptor antagonist (H2RA) are considered to be effective for the treatment of iatrogenic gastric ulcer after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to systematically evaluate the evidence comparing PPI and H2RA for iatrogenic ulcer. Methods: Data from PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched to identify eligible randomized trials. Outcome measures were delayed bleeding, epigastric pain and ulcer healing. Results: Six full-text studies were identified including a total of 522 patients. Pooled data suggested a significantly lower bleeding rate in the PPI group than in the H2RA group (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.95). Subgroup analysis showed PPI was more effective in the prevention of bleeding than H2RA for ESD-induced ulcer (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.85) and 8-week duration of medication (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.76). There were no differences in the incidence of epigastric pain (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.53-1.51) and ulcer healing rate after endoscopic therapies between both groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows PPI is superior to H2RA for the prevention of delayed bleeding without different effectiveness in the reduction of epigastric pain and in the promotion of ulcer healing after EMR or ESD.
AIMTo compare the outcomes between laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and type I hiatal hernia diagnosed by oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and symptom-scale assessment.METHODSFrom February 2014 to January 2015, 70 patients who were diagnosed with LPR and type I hiatal hernia and referred for symptomatic assessment, oropharyngeal pH-monitoring, manometry, and gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled in this study. All of the patients met the inclusion criteria. All of the patients underwent LNF or PPIs administration, and completed a 2-year follow-up. Patients’ baseline characteristics and primary outcome measures, including comprehensive and single symptoms of LPR, PPIs independence, and satisfaction, and postoperative complications were assessed. The outcomes of LNF and PPIs therapy were analyzed and compared.RESULTSThere were 31 patients in the LNF group and 39 patients in the PPI group. Fifty-three patients (25 in the LNF group and 28 in the PPI group) completed reviews and follow-up. Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring parameters were all abnormal with high acid exposure, a large amount of reflux, and a high Ryan score, associated reflux symptom index (RSI) score. There was a significant improvement in the RSI and LPR symptom scores after the 2-year follow-up in both groups (P < 0.05), as well as typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Improvement in the RSI (P < 0.005) and symptom scores of cough (P = 0.032), mucus (P = 0.011), and throat clearing (P = 0.022) was significantly superior in the LNF group to that in the PPI group. After LNF and PPIs therapy, 13 and 53 patients achieved independence from PPIs therapy (LNF: 44.0% vs PPI: 7.14%, P < 0.001) during follow-up, respectively. Patients in the LNF group were more satisfied with their quality of life than those in the PPI group (LNF: 62.49 ± 28.68 vs PPI: 44.36 ± 32.77, P = 0.004). Body mass index was significantly lower in the LNF group than in the PPI group (LNF: 22.2 ± 3.1 kg/m2
vs PPI: 25.1 ± 2.9 kg/m2, P = 0.001).CONCLUSIONDiagnosis of LPR should be assessed with oropharyngeal pH-monitoring, manometry, and the symptom-scale. LNF achieves better improvement than PPIs for LPR with type I hiatal hernia.
Intravariceal-mucosal sclerotherapy using small dose of sclerosant is more effective than EVL in decreasing the incidence of variceal recurrence for cirrhotic patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.