ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Long-Term Outcomes of Carvedilol Plus Endoscopic Variceal Ligation in Secondary Prophylaxis of Variceal Bleeding.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCarvedilol 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsPatients 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.
conclusionsOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40180690What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.