Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40734855›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Choosing Wisely: A Systematic Review of Terlipressin Versus Octreotide for Variceal Bleeding.

Shivling S Swami, Alousious Kasagga, Amanuel K Assefa, Maysaa N Amin, Rahma Hashish, Khaled Agha Tabari, Ann K Yu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shivling S SwamiInternal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA.
Alousious KasaggaPathology, Peking University, Beijing, CHN.
Amanuel K AssefaOrthopedics and Trauma, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS foundation trust, Leicester, GBR.
Maysaa N AminMicrobiology/Immunology, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA.
Rahma HashishInternal Medicine, Sherwood Forest NHS Trust, Nottingham, GBR.
Khaled Agha TabariRadiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, GBR.
Ann K YuInternal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High pressure in the portal circulation is a key indicator of advanced liver disease. It has many harmful effects on patients with cirrhosis, such as promoting the growth of dilated esophageal vessels. As portal pressure rises, it creates serious risks for life-threatening bleeding problems from variceal sources, which leads to higher mortality and worse patient outcomes. A multidisciplinary approach that includes pharmacologic and endoscopic procedures and radiological techniques is necessary to treat variceal hemorrhage effectively. There are typically three main components to clinical management: primary prophylaxis, which is the initial step in preventing disease; secondary prophylaxis, which is the second step; and acute hemorrhage management, which is the third step. The goal of both primary and secondary prophylactic measures is to stop variceal bleeding episodes from happening. Acute variceal hemorrhage is a severe medical condition that needs immediate treatment to stop the bleeding and prevent it from happening again. Vasoactive drugs are the primary treatment for all patients with suspected variceal bleeding. They are safe and simple to give, and they are part of standard treatment protocols. When bleeding continues during an endoscopic procedure, there is strong evidence that vasoactive drugs should be given right away, preferably before the diagnostic endoscopy. There is a lack of direct comparative studies in the current literature that look at the relative therapeutic benefits of vasoactive drugs when used as adjunctive therapies with endoscopic interventions for managing variceal bleeding. The goal of this systematic review was to look at and compare the safety and effectiveness of various vasoactive drugs as supportive treatments for patients with esophageal variceal hemorrhage who were also receiving endoscopic therapy. We used a search strategy that included several electronic databases, such as PubMed, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, to find studies that investigated how well these two drugs worked in treating active variceal bleeding outcomes. The review included a range of study types, such as meta-analyses, observational studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of 22,422 participants were included in the final analysis of 14 studies, including two RCTs, two observational studies, seven meta-analyses, and three narrative reviews. The results revealed that various vasoactive drugs had similar therapeutic effects on controlling bleeding, length of hospital stay, death rates, and adverse event profiles when used as adjunctive therapies. The research demonstrated that vasoactive medication treatment results in improved control of bleeding and shorter hospital stays. It also led to lower rates of immediate death from all causes and fewer blood product requirements. Many studies comparing these drugs found that they all worked similarly in clinical settings. Further research is therefore needed, such as high-quality randomized controlled trials, to strengthen these conclusions.

Indexed as

endoscopic bandingendoscopic ligationoctreotideterlipressinupper gi bleedingvariceal bleedingvasoactive agents

Identifiers

PMID40734855
PMCPMC12306649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.