Skip to main content

PPI efficacy in the reduction of variceal bleeding incidence and mortality, a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

To review the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in gastroesophageal varices (GEVs).

Methods

We searched PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that measured the effect of PPI for prophylaxis and treatment of post-band ligation ulcers up to July 20, 2021. We included studies that measured the effect of PPI as treatment or prophylaxis for post-band ligation ulcers; articles that were published in peer-reviewed international journals and had enough data for qualitative and quantitative analysis were included with no language restriction. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the inconsistency (I2) and chi-squared (χ2) test. I2 > 50% was considered substantial heterogeneity in the studies, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The data was continuous, and we used the standardized mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval to assess the estimated effect measure.

Results

A total of 7 studies with 2030 patients were included in our study of which 1480 participants were males (72%) and 550 females (18%). Mean age was 59.7 years old. Rebleeding post-band ligation was compared between PPI and placebo with significant favor for PPI (p = 0.00001). The pooled risk ratio was 0.53 (95% CI of 0.41, 0.68); furthermore, bleeding-related death at a 1-month period was compared between PPI and placebo with significant favor for PPI (p = 0.00001). The pooled risk ratio was significant at 0.33 (95% CI of 0.20, 0.53). The length of hospital stay postoperative was compared between PPI and placebo with cumulative mean difference of 0.13 (95% CI of −1.13, 1.39), yet without significance.

Conclusions

The study suggests a twofold reduction in the risk of bleeding and a threefold reduction in the risk of bleeding-related death with the use of PPI following EVL.

Introduction

Variceal hemorrhage is a serious complication of portal hypertension and represents approximately 60–65% of all bleeding episodes in patients with cirrhosis [1, 2]. The reported mortality rate during the first variceal hemorrhage episode is 15–20%, with higher rates in advanced liver disease [3]. Despite the availability of effective treatment options for acute variceal hemorrhage, the risk for subsequent episodes of hemorrhage and mortality remains substantial. In one study, the risk of rebleeding following an initial variceal hemorrhage was 13% after 5 days and 17% at week 6 with reported mortality of 20% [4].

Management of acute variceal hemorrhage consists of esophageal variceal band ligation (EBL) along with intravenous vasoconstrictors, antibiotics, and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) followed by the initiation of secondary prophylaxis [5]. Combination therapy with EBL and nonselective beta-blockers are the current standard of care for secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage [6]. Despite the well-established effectiveness of PPI therapy in a variety of etiologies of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), current data are insufficient to support its use in preventing variceal rebleeding or treating portal hypertensive gastropathy [7, 8].

Acid suppression therapy showed to benefit patients with cirrhosis by reducing the size of post-EVL esophageal ulcerations [9] and promoting gastric mucosal healing in peptic ulcer disease [10]. These benefits may explain the common clinical practice of prescribing oral PPI therapy in cirrhotic patients in the absence of supporting data and despite of published associations of long-term PPI use and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis as well as hepatic encephalopathy [11,12,13].

The role of PPI therapy in preventing UGIB in patients with cirrhosis after variceal hemorrhage remains unclear. Our study aimed to systemically analyze the role of PPI in post-band ligation ulcers.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was fulfilled in this systematic review and meta-analysis [14].

Search strategy

We searched PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that measured the effect of PPI for prophylaxis and treatment of post-band ligation ulcers up to July 20, 2021.

The following search terms were used: (“PPI” OR “Proton pump inhibitors” OR “Proton pump inhibit*”) AND (“post band ligation” OR “ligation ulcers” OR “bleeding ulcers” OR “post band ulcers”); moreover, reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles was used to complement the broad search.

Eligibility criteria

Studies that measured the effect of PPI as treatment or prophylaxis for post-band ligation ulcers and articles that were published in peer-reviewed international journals and had enough data for qualitative and quantitative analysis were included with no language restriction. We excluded conference papers, unpublished articles, reviews, letters to the editor, posters, and animal studies.

Data extraction

We extracted the following data from the included studies as baseline characteristics: name of the first author, publication year, country, study design, gender, mean age, and total sample size (Table 1). For qualitative and quantitative analysis, the received medical treatment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and conclusion were extracted (Table 2).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics
Table 2 Summary of included studies

Quality assessment

We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [22] to assess the observational studies and ROB-2 risk of bias version 2 for randomized control trials (RCT). The NOS tool judges the studies on three broad perspectives: the selection of the study groups, the comparability of the groups, and the ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome. Furthermore, ROB-2 tool assesses the risk of biases in the following domains: (i) bias arising from the randomization process, (ii) bias due to deviations from intended interventions, (iii) bias due to missing outcome data, (iv) bias in measurement of the outcome, and (v) bias in selection of the reported result. A judgement of “low risk,” “some concerns,” or “high risk” was made for the risk of bias in each domain, allowing an overall risk of bias to be generated for each study using the tools algorithm. Two independent reviewers (A.A and A.A) screened the methodological quality of included studies and in case of discrepancies were resolved by discussion.

Data analysis

We conducted our double-arm meta-analysis using RevMan version 5. Random-effects meta-analysis models were employed to estimate the effect of PPI for bleeding, bleeding-related death, and hospitalization. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the inconsistency (I2) and chi-squared (χ2) test. I2 > 50% was considered substantial heterogeneity in the studies, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The data was continuous, and we used the standardized mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval to assess the estimated effect measure.

Results

Search results

Our search strategy resulted in a total number of 127 studies. After removing the duplicates, 79 articles were screened for title and abstract screening, and 25 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility. Following the full-text screening, 7 [15,16,17,18,19,20,21] papers met our criteria and were included in our meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Four studies were randomized control trials; three were retrospective cohort.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Full-text screening

Baseline characteristics/summary of the included studies

A total of 2030 patients were included in our study of which 1480 participants were males (72%) and 550 females (18%). Mean age was 59.7 years old. Various types of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) were used including pantoprazole, rabeprazole, or omeprazole—the most used PPI. All PPI were used for treatment of post-band ligation ulcers occur for hospitalized patients (Tables 1 and 2).

Quality assessment

ROB-1 was performed assessing the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials; out of our 4 studies, 2 showed low risk of bias and 2 unclear (Figs. 2 and 3). While for cohort studies, judged by following New castle Ottawa (NOS) guidelines, our three cohort studies were of good quality due to matching of the cases and controls regarding the confounders and well selection of controls with detailed description (Table 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Low and unclear risk of bias

Fig. 3
figure 3

Studies showing the risk of bias

Table 3 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of observational studies

Data analysis

Forest plot of a random-effects meta-analysis on post-band ligation variceal bleed compares PPI with placebo. Values are risk ratios (95% CIs). The shaded boxes represent the point estimate for each individual trial, and the horizontal line extending from each box represents the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI. The size of the shaded circle indicates the relative weight of the trial in the meta-analysis. The diamonds represent the overall pooled risk ratio.

In our first analysis, all our seven studies including 2030 patients, rebleeding post-band ligation compared PPI and placebo with significant favor PPI (p = 0.00001). The pooled risk ratio was 0.53 (95% CI of 0.41, 0.68), showing a protective effect from rebleeding with PPI. Heterogeneity analysis demonstrated low-moderate statistical evidence for heterogeneity (I2 = 23%, p = 0.26) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot for rebleeding post-band ligation

In the second analysis, seven studies including 2030 patients bleeding-related death at a 1-month period compared PPI and placebo with significant favor for PPI (p = 0.00001). The pooled risk ratio was significant at 0.33 (95% CI of 0.20, 0.53), showing a protective effect from bleeding-related death with PPI. No heterogeneity analysis was found as evidence for heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.69) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of bleeding related death

In the third analysis, four studies including 1141 patients’ length of hospital stay postoperative compared PPI and placebo. The cumulative mean difference was insignificant at 0.13 (95% CI of −1.13, 1.39), showing no effect either for PPI or placebo on length of hospital stay. Heterogeneity analysis demonstrated no evidence for heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.84) (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot of length of hospital stay 

Discussion

Our study demonstrates a significant reduction in the rate of bleeding and bleeding-related deaths with the use of PPIs rather than placebo following EVL. In addition, there is no evidence that this benefit comes at the cost of a longer hospital stay. Thus, our analysis shows that PPIs may be a valuable option following EVL as they are a cheap and widely available class of drugs that may significantly reduce complications and mortality following the procedure [22, 23].

Following EVL, bleeding due to ligation ulcers is a common complication occurring after 2.8 to 7.8% of procedures [24,25,26,27], although this rate varies depending on the setting (elective versus emergency) of the EVL session, with emergent EVL carrying a much greater risk of rebleeding [26]. Such bleeding is not only severely debilitating to the patient, but may also be fatal, with a 6-month mortality rate of 58.6% in one study [28].

One potentially important cause of post-EVL bleeding is acid reflux, which has been associated in one study with a significantly increased risk of post-EVL bleeding in patients receiving prophylactic ligation6. Therefore, a possible mechanism by which PPIs may reduce post-EVL bleeding is the reduction of epithelial exposure to acid following the procedure.

Currently, there are no clear recommendations on the use of PPIs in patients with cirrhosis. For instance, the 2015 UK guidelines do not recommend proton pump inhibitor use for the control of an acute variceal bleed or for the prevention of post-EVL bleeding [29]. These recommendations are primarily based on data associating PPI use with severe adverse events. For instance, a 2014 propensity-matched cohort study showed a significantly higher rate of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in patients using PP [30]; however, findings on this risk have been conflicting, with two recent studies not reporting a positive association between PPI use and SBP [30, 31], and one study reinforcing the finding of the 2014 propensity matched cohort study by showing a positive association [32, 33]. In addition, an observational study linked PPI use in patients with cirrhosis to a higher mortality rate [34]. However, patients taking PPIs had a higher baseline severity of disease, and although the authors used multivariate models to adjust for potential confounders, it is doubtful that all potential confounders were adequately adjusted for.

In addition to PPIs, another option for post-EVL bleeding prophylaxis is sucralfate. A study by Sakr et al. showed that sucralfate prophylaxis, compared to placebo, was associated with a nearly 50% relative reduction in the number of patients having post-banding ulcers [35]. Further, the mean size of ulcers in the sucralfate group was also significantly lower. Recently, a trial by Seo et al. showed that combination therapy with EVL and beta-blockers, for the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, significantly reduced the 2-year recurrence rate of bleeding compared to either option alone by nearly four-folds [36]. However, there was no signal of a mortality benefit. To our knowledge, both studies are only available as abstracts and should accordingly be interpreted with caution. A small earlier randomized trial by Nijhawan et al. (30 patients) did not show that the use of sucralfate did not result in enhanced healing [37]. Another trial investigating simvastatin did not show a significant reduction in the rates of bleeding; however, it was a relatively small trial of 59 patients, and the simvastatin group had significant reductions in portal pressure [38, 39].

Ultimately, because of the association of PPI with SBP, mortality, and a consequently unclear net clinical benefit, it may be rational to target high-risk patients for PPI therapy then to use them for all-comers. A number of risk factors have been associated with rebleeding after EVL, including Child-Pugh C status, bacterial infections, bilirubin levels, coagulation indices, the extent of ascites, varices, and the number of bands placed during EVL [40, 41]. In the future, randomized trials enrolling those patients at the highest risk of post-EVL rebleeding may show a net clinical benefit to the use of PPIs following EVL.

Our study has some limitations which ought to be acknowledged. First, a substantial portion of the evidence was derived from observational studies. Second, although statistical heterogeneity was low, there was some significant clinical heterogeneity as not all studies enrolled patients with a similar baseline severity or for the same purposes of primary vs secondary prophylaxis. Third, our meta-analysis cannot be used to determine the net clinical benefit to using PPIs, as side effects of PPI use were not evaluated in our analysis. Finally, it is unclear from our analysis what the optimal duration of PPI therapy is.

In conclusion, our analysis suggests a twofold reduction in the risk of bleeding and a threefold reduction in the risk of bleeding-related death with the use of PPI following EVL. However, a significant portion of the evidence was derived from observational studies, and previous studies have raised concern about the association of PPIs with SBP. Accordingly, future randomized trials targeting high-risk patients are needed to inform clinical practice.

Availability of data and materials

All materials and data are available.

References

  1. D’Amico G, Garcia-Tsao G, Pagliaro L (2006) Natural history and prognostic indicators of survival in cirrhosis: a systematic review of 118 studies. J Hepatol 44:217–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cremers I, Ribeiro S (2014) Management of variceal and nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 7:206–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mallet M, Rudler M, Thabut D (2017) Variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 5:185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Amico G, De Franchis R, Cooperative Study Group (2003) Upper digestive bleeding in cirrhosis. Post-therapeutic outcome and prognostic indicators. Hepatology 38:599–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia-Tsao G, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, Bosch J (2017) Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis: risk stratification, diagnosis, and management: 2016 practice guidance by the American association for the study of liver diseases. Hepatology 65:310–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Albillos A, Tejedor M (2014) Secondary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding. Clin Liver Dis 18:359–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brooks J, Warburton R, Beales IL (2013) Prevention of upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: current controversies and clinical guidance. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 4:206–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Garcia-Saenz-de-Sicilia M, Sanchez-Avila J, Chavez-Tapia N, Lopez- Arce G, Garcia-Osogobio S, Ruiz-Cordero R et al (2010) PPIs are not associated with a lower incidence of portal-hypertension-related bleeding in cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol 16:5869–5873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shaheen NJ, Stuart E, Schmitz SM, Mitchell KL, Fried MW, Zacks S et al (2005) Pantoprazole reduces the size of postbanding ulcers after variceal band ligation: a randomized, controlled trial. Hepatology 41:588–594

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen LS, Lin HC, Hwang SJ, Lee FY, Hou MC, Lee SD (1996) Prevalence of gastric ulcer in cirrhotic patients and its relation to portal hypertension. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alaniz C, Mohammad RA, Welage LS (2010) High-dose PPIs in patients with variceal hemorrhage. Arch Intern Med 170:1698

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chavez-Tapia NC, Tellez-Avila FI, Garcia-Leiva J, Valdovinos MA (2008) Use and overuse of proton pump inhibitors in cirrhotic patients. Med Sci Monit 14(9):CR468–72

  13. Li DK, Chung RT (2017) Use of proton pump inhibitors in chronic liver diseases. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 10:148–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

  15. Wu CK, Liang CM, Hsu CN et al (2017) The role of adjuvant acid suppression on the outcomes of bleeding esophageal varices after endoscopic variceal ligation. PLoS One 12(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169884

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghoz H, Patel P, Stancampiano F, et al (2020) Proton-pump-inhibitor use associated with lower short-term rebleeding and mortality in patients receiving esophageal variceal band ligation: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1571–1578. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000001905. Published online 2020

  17. Kim KR, Jun CH, Cho KM et al (2015) Can proton pump inhibitors reduce rebleeding following Histoacryl sclerotherapy for gastric variceal hemorrhage? Korean J Intern Med 30(5):593–601. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.30.5.593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hidaka H, Nakazawa T, Wang G et al (2012) Long-term administration of PPI reduces treatment failures after esophageal variceal band ligation: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gastroenterol 47(2):118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-011-0472-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lau JY, Sung JJ, Lee KK et al (2000) Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. N Engl J Med 343(5):310–316. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200008033430501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin HJ, Lo WC, Lee FY, Lee SD (1997) A prospective randomized comparative trial showing that omeprazole prevents re-bleeding in bleeding peptic ulcer patients after successful endoscopic therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(97)80288-X

  21. Kang SH, Yim HJ, Kim SY et al (2016) Proton pump inhibitor therapy is associated with reduction of early bleeDing risk after prophylactic endoscopic variceal band ligation a retrospective cohort study. Med (United States) 95(8):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002903

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lo CKL, Mertz D, Loeb M (2014) Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-45

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Grp P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (reprinted from annals of internal medicine). Phys Ther 89(9):873–880. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitz RJ, Sharma P, Badr AS, Qamar MT, Weston AP (2001) Incidence and management of esophageal stricture formation, ulcer bleeding, perforation, and massive hematoma formation from sclerotherapy versus band ligation. Am J Gastroenterol 96(2):437–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03460.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schepke M, Kleber G, Nürnberg D et al (2004) Ligation versus propranolol for the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 40(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.20284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Petrasch F, Grothaus J, Mössner J, Schiefke I, Hoffmeister A (2010) Differences in bleeding behavior after endoscopic band ligation: after retrospective analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 10:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-10-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sinclair M, Vaughan R, Angus PW et al (2015) Risk factors for band-induced ulcer bleeding after prophylactic and therapeutic endoscopic variceal band ligation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27(8):928–932. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000000387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen WT, Lin CY, Sheen I et al (2011) MELD score can predict early mortality in patients with rebleeding after band ligation for variceal bleeding. World J Gastroenterol 17(16):2120–2125. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i16.2120

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tripathi D, Stanley AJ, Hayes PC et al (2015) UK guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients. Gut. 64(11):1680–1704. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Min YW, Lim KS, Min BH et al (2014) Proton pump inhibitor use significantly increases the risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in 1965 patients with cirrhosis and ascites: a propensity score matched cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 40(6):695–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.12875

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim JH, Lim KS, Min YW et al (2017) Proton pump inhibitors do not increase the risk for recurrent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 32(5):1064–1070. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.13637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Terg R, Casciato P, Garbe C et al (2015) Proton pump inhibitor therapy does not increase the incidence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis: a multicenter prospective study. J Hepatol 62(5):1056–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2014.11.036

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dam G, Vilstrup H, Watson H, Jepsen P (2016) Proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for hepatic encephalopathy and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis with ascites. Hepatology. 64(4):1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28737

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dultz G, Piiper A, Zeuzem S, Kronenberger B, Waidmann O (2015) Proton pump inhibitor treatment is associated with the severity of liver disease and increased mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 41(5):459–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13061

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sakr MA, Hamed WAE-A, El Gafaary MM, EL-Folly RF, EL-Hamamsy M (2011) Role of sucralfate in promoting healing of post band variceal ulcer. Adv Nat Sci 4(2). https://doi.org/10.3968/J.ANS.1715787020110402.125

  36. Seo YS, Kim MY, Yim HJ et al (2017) Multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial comparing propranolol, endoscopic band ligation, and combination therapy for the primary prophylaxis variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Hepatol 66(1):S35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-8278(17)30330-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nijhawan S, Rai RR (1994) Does post-ligation oesophageal ulcer healing require treatment? Lancet. 343(8889):116–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)90844-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Abraldes JG, Albillos A, Bañares R et al (2009) Simvastatin lowers portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 136(5):1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.01.043

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Drolz A, Schramm C, Seiz O et al (2021) Risk factors associated with bleeding after prophylactic endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis. Endoscopy. 53(3):226–234. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1214-5355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang MT, Chen HS, Lee HC, Lin CL (2007) Risk factors and survival of early bleeding after esophageal variceal ligation. Hepatogastroenterology 54(78):1705–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Xu L, Ji F, Xu QW, Zhang MQ (2011) Risk factors for predicting early variceal rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation. World J Gastroenterol 17(28):3347–3352. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i28.3347

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Daad Hassan SharafEldin, MD., for her contribution in reviewing the manuscript and appraisal.

Funding

N/A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SAE: study question, design, data analysis, and scientific writing. AS: study question, design, data analysis, and scientific writing. AKA: study question, design, data analysis, and scientific writing. DM: data collection, data extraction, and data analysis. AF: data collection, data extraction, and data analysis. AA: data collection, data extraction, and data analysis. MV: data collection and data extraction. ZZ: data collection and data extraction. AI: study review and appraisal. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheref A. Elseidy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

N/A.

Consent for publication

N/A.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elseidy, S.A., Sayed, A., Awad, A.K. et al. PPI efficacy in the reduction of variceal bleeding incidence and mortality, a meta-analysis. Egypt J Intern Med 34, 68 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43162-022-00156-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43162-022-00156-2

Keywords