Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. May 28, 2015; 21(20): 6341-6351
Published online May 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i20.6341
Published online May 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i20.6341
Ref. | Sample size | Age | Gender (M/F) | Smoking (%) | Alcohol abuse (%) | H. pylori infection positive (%) | NSAID user (%) | Drug type | Intervention | Outcome assessment time | The main outcomes | |
PPI group | H2RA group | |||||||||||
Hsu et al[13] | P:52 | P: 63.2 ± 18. | P: 41/11 | P: 32.7 | P: 13.5 | NA | P: 26.9 | P: Pantoprazole | 40 mg intravenous/12 h 3 d, followed by 40 mg/d orally | 50 mg intravenous/8 h, followed by 150 mg/12 h orally | 8 wk | 12345 |
H:50 | H: 64.7 ± 13.8 | H: 37/13 | H: 32.0 | H: 8.0 | H: 320 | H: Ranitidine | ||||||
Ye et al[14] | P:41 | P: 61.2 ± 9.0 | P: 28/13 | NA | NA | P: 61.0 | NA | P: Omeprazole | 20 mg/d orally | 20 mg/12 h orally | 28 d | 1 |
H:41 | H: 58.5 ± 9.4 | H: 24/17 | H: 56.1 | H: Famotidine | ||||||||
Jensen et al[15] | P:72 | P: 59.6 ± 16.1 | P: 51/21 | NA | NA | NA | P: 69 | P: Pantoprazole | 80 mg bolus and 8 mg/h infusion 3 d | 50 mg bolus and 6.25 mg/h infusion 3 d | 3 d, 7 d, 30 d | 1 |
H:77 | H: 55.6 ± 16.8 | H: 52/25 | H: 71 | H: Ranitidine | ||||||||
Lin et al[16] | Pa:67 | Pa: 67 | Pa: 58/9 | NA | NA | NA | Pa: 26.9 | P: Omeprazole | a: 40 mg intravenous/12 h 3 d, followed by 20 mg/d orally | 400 mg intravenous/12 h 3 d, followed by 400 mg/12 h orally | 14 d | 12345 |
Pb:66 | Pb: 71 | Pb: 57/9 | Pb: 24.2 | H: Cimetidine | b: 40 mg intravenous/6 h 3 d, followed by 20 mg/d orally | |||||||
H:67 | H: 68 | H: 61/6 | H: 29.9 | |||||||||
Jeong et al[17] | P:85 | P: 62.9 ± 9.4 | P: 52/33 | NA | NA | P: 61.9 | NA | P: Pantoprazole | 80 mg bolus and 8 mg/h infusion d1, 40 mg intravenous/12 h d2-3, followed by 40 mg/d orally | 20 mg intravenous/12 h d2, followed by 20 mg/d orally | 24 h, 7 d, 14 d | 123 |
H:79 | H: 63.5 ± 7.8 | H: 53/26 | H: 64.1 | H: Famotidine | ||||||||
Uedo et al[18] | P:64 | P: 68.1 ± 8.5 | 112/33 | NA | NA | 11.5 | 11.5 | P: Rabeprazole | 20 mg/d orally | 800 mg/d orally | 8 wk | 1 |
H:66 | H: 65.7± 7.6 | H: Cimetidine | ||||||||||
Imaeda et al[19] | P:62 | P: 68.4 ± 8.0 | P: 47/15 | P: 58.1 H: 49.2 | NA | P: 61.3 | NA | P: Lansoprazole | 30 mg intravenous/12 h 2 d, followed by 30 mg/d orally | 75 mg intravenous/12 h 2 d, followed by 75 mg/12 h orally | 8 wk | 1 |
H:61 | H: 67.6 ± 8.5 | H: 52/9 | H: 62.3 | H: Roxatidine | ||||||||
Sakurada et al[20] | P:40 | P: 65.8 ± 2.5 | P: 35/5 | NA | NA | P: 77.5 | P: 35.0 | P: Omeprazole | 20 mg intravenous/12 h 3 d, followed by 20 mg/d orally | 20 mg intravenous/12 h 3 d, followed by 20 mg/d orally | 6-8 wk | 15 |
H:37 | H:60.2 ± 1.7 | H: 31/6 | H: 78.4 | H: 29.7 | H: Famotidine | |||||||
Tomita et al[21] | P:77 | P: 70.4 ± 8.7 | P: 59/18 | NA | NA | NA | NA | P: Omeprazole | 20 mg/12 h intravenous 3 d, followed by 20 mg/d orally | 40 mg bolus/d | 8 wk | 1 |
H:79 | H: 70.6 ± 9.5 | H: 59/20 | H: Famotidine | |||||||||
Lin et al[22] | P:50 | P: 65 H: 66.5 | P: 46/4 | P: 34.0 | P:12.0 | NA | NA | P: Omeprazole | 40 mg intravenous and 160 mg infusion 3 d, followed by 20 mg/12 h orally 2 m | 300 mg intravenous and 1200 mg infusion 3 d, followed by 400 mg/12 h orally 2 m | 3 d, 14 d | 12345 |
H:50 | H:43/7 | H: 28.0 | H: 12.0 | H: Cimetidine |
Number of studies | Number of subjects | OR (95%CI) | Heterogeneity withinsubgroups | Difference betweensubgroups | |
End-point time | |||||
Overall | 10 | 2076 | 0.33 (0.24-0.45) | No (P = 0.20, I2 = 23%) | No (P = 0.42, I2 = 0%) |
24 h | 1 | 164 | 0.08 (0.00-1.46) | NA | |
3 d | 2 | 249 | 0.23 (0.07-0.76) | Yes (P = 0.13, I2 = 56%) | |
7 d | 2 | 313 | 0.32 (0.13-0.79) | No (P = 0.37, I2 = 0%) | |
14 d | 3 | 464 | 0.26 (0.16-0.43) | Yes (P = 0.07, I2 = 58%) | |
28-30 d | 2 | 231 | 0.45 (0.15-1.36) | NA | |
6 wk or more | 5 | 588 | 0.53 (0.30-0.94) | No (P = 0.42, I2 = 0%) | |
Nation | |||||
Overall | 10 | 1283 | 0.36 (0.25-0.51) | No (P = 0.13, I2 = 35%) | No (P = 0.42, I2 = 0%) |
Japan | 4 | 486 | 0.63 (0.33-1.17) | No (P = 0.51, I2 = 0%) | |
China | 3 | 402 | 0.25 (0.14-0.42) | Yes (P = 0.06, I2 = 59%) | |
South Korea | 2 | 246 | 0.25 (0.07-0.95) | NA | |
United States | 1 | 149 | 0.45 (0.15-1.36) | NA | |
Intervention drug PPI | |||||
Overall | 8 | 1030 | 0.32 (0.21-0.48) | No (P = 0.13, I2 = 37%) | No (P = 0.93, I2 = 0%) |
Omeprazole | 5 | 615 | 0.32 (0.20-0.52) | Yes (P = 0.03, I2 = 61%) | |
Pantoprazole | 3 | 415 | 0.31 (0.15-0.65) | No (P = 0.69, I2 = 0%) | |
Intervention drug H2RA | |||||
Overall | 8 | 996 | 0.33 (0.22-0.48) | No (P = 0.14, I2 = 36%) | No (P = 0.18, I2 = 41.6%) |
Cimetidine | 3 | 430 | 0.27 (0.16-0.44) | Yes (P = 0.07, I2 = 58%) | |
Famotidine | 3 | 315 | 0.85 (0.28-2.61) | No (P = 0.56, I2 = 0%) | |
Ranitidine | 2 | 251 | 0.34 (0.14-0.85) | No (P = 0.45, I2 = 0%) |
-
Citation: Zhang YS, Li Q, He BS, Liu R, Li ZJ. Proton pump inhibitors therapy
vs H2 receptor antagonists therapy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding after endoscopy: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(20): 6341-6351 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i20/6341.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i20.6341