Role of band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Table 1 Results from meta-analyses comparing band ligation with other interventions in terms of all-cause related rebleeding, variceal rebleeding, all-cause related mortality, bleeding related mortality and complication rates

Study (reference)	Publication year	Country	Method	Number of studies	Number of patients	All-cause related rebleeding RR or OR/CI/I2	Variceal rebleedingRR or OR/CI /I2	All-cause related mortalityRR or OR/CI /I2	Bleeding related mortalityRR or OR/CI/I2	ComplicationsRR or OR/CI/I2
Singh et al[16]	2002	United States	EBL vs EST + EBL	7	453	NR	1.12/ 0.69-1.81/ NR	NR	1.1/ 0.70-1.74/ NR	0.37/ 0.21-0.62/ NR
Karsan et al[22]	2005	United States	EBL vs EST + EBL	8	520	NR	1.05/ 0.67-1.64/ NS	0.99/ 0.68-1.44/ NS	NR	NR
1Gonzalez et al[15]	2008	Spain	2Combination therapy vs EBL	4	404	0.62/ 0.44-0.87/ 40%	NR	0.79/ 0.44-1.43/ 54%	NR	NR
Cheung et al[17]	2009	Canada	EBL vs PT	6	698	0.96/ 0.73-1.30/ 62%	NR/ NR/ 79%	1.20/ 0.92-1.57/ 0	NR	0.90/ 0.70-1.15/ 0
			EBL+PT vs EBL	4	404	0.57/ 0.31-1.08/ 60%	0.38/ 0.19-0.76/ 0	0.90/ 0.41-1.98/ 45%		3.4/ 1.4-8.2/ 74%
			EBL+PT vs PT	2	279	0.76/ 0.56-1.03/ 0	0.58/ 0.40-0.85/ 0	0.94/ 0.54-1.63/ 31%		NR
Ding et al[13]	2009	China	β-blockers + ISMN vs EBL	4	476	0.94/ 0.64-1.38 71.50%	NR	0.81/ 0.61-1.08/ 0	0.76/ 0.31-1.42/ 38.90%	1.26/ 0.93-1.70/ 42.70%
1Funakoshi et al[14]	2010	France	EBL vs EBL + β-blockers	3	252	3.16/ 1.76-5.34/ 0	NR	1.78/ 0.92-3.43/ 0	NR	NR
Li et al[18]	2011	China	EBL vs β-blockers + ISMN	6	687	0.95/ 0.65-1.40/ NR	0.89/ 0.53-1.49/ NR	1.25/ 1.01-1.55/ NR	1.16/ 0.68-1.97/ NR	NR
Thiele et al[19]	2012	Denmark	3EBL+PT vs monotherapy	9	955	0.68/ 0.54-0.85/ 1%	0.67/ 0.54-0.84/0	0.89/ 0.65-1.21/ 0	0.52/ 0.27-0.99/ NR	1.42/ 0.94-2.13/ 69%
Ko et al[21]	2012	South Korea	EBL + β-blockers vs β-blockers	4	409	0.78/ 0.58-1.04/ NR	0.60/ 0.41-0.88/ NR	1.21/ 0.88-1.65/ NR
Dai et al[20]	2015	China	EBL vs EST	14	1236	0.68/ 0.57-0.81/ 9.00%	NR	0.95/ 0.77-1.17/ 32.80%	NR	0.28/ 0.13-0.58/ 86.50%
Albillos et al[23]	2017	Spain	EBL + β-blockers vs EBL	4	416	0.36/ 0.21-0.59/ NR	0.52/ 0.25-1.11/ NR	0.50/ 0.28-0.89/ NR	NR	NR
			EBL + β-blockers vs β-blockers	3	389	1.0/ 0.68-1.47/ NR	0.81/ 0.53-1.23/ NR	1.19/ 0.76-1.87/ NR

¹These results represent a subgroup analysis of the examined meta-analysis;

²The term combination therapy includes endoscopic therapy combined with injection sclerotherapy or band ligation combined with drug therapy (β-blockers); ³The term monotherapy includes endoscopic band ligation alone or medical therapy alone (β-blockers alone or combined with ISMN). RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; I²: Study heterogeneity; EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; EST: Endoscopic sclerotherapy; NR: Not reported; NS: Nonsignificant; PT: Pharmacotherapy; ISMN: Isosorbide mononitrate.