Endoscopy 2019; 51(08): 722-732
DOI: 10.1055/a-0929-6603
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for high risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sally Wai-Yin Luk
1   Department of Surgery, North District Hospital, Sheung Shui, Hong Kong
,
Shayan Irani
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
,
Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
,
James Yun Wong Lau
3   Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong
,
Enders Kwok Wai Ng
3   Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong
,
Anthony Yuen-Bum Teoh
3   Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 20 November 2018

accepted after revision 23 April 2019

Publication Date:
25 June 2019 (online)

Abstract

Background Recent evidence suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is an effective and safe alternative to percutaneous drainage (PT-GBD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two procedures in high risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis.

Methods A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted for all articles published up to October 2017 to identify comparative studies between EUS-GBD and PT-GBD. A meta-analysis was performed on outcomes including technical success, clinical success, post-procedure adverse events, length of hospital stay, unplanned hospital readmission, need for reintervention, recurrent cholecystitis, and disease- or treatment-related mortality for these two procedures.

Results Five comparative studies (206 patients in the EUS-GBD group vs. 289 patients in the PT-GBD group), were included in the final analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in technical success (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 1.58; P  = 0.21; I 2 = 0 %) and clinical success (OR 1.07, 95 %CI 0.36 to 3.16; P  = 0.90; I 2 = 44 %) between the two procedures. EUS-GBD had fewer adverse events than PT-GBD (OR 0.43, 95 %CI 0.18 to 1.00; P  = 0.05; I 2 = 66 %). Moreover, patients undergoing EUS-GBD had shorter hospital stays, with pooled standard mean difference of – 2.53 (95 %CI – 4.28 to – 0.78; P = 0.005; I 2 = 98 %), and required significantly fewer reinterventions (OR 0.16, 95 %CI 0.04 to 0.042; P <  0.001; I 2 = 32 %) resulting in significantly fewer unplanned readmissions (OR 0.16, 95 %CI 0.05 to 0.53; P  = 0.003; I 2 = 79 %).

Conclusions EUS-GBD was associated with lower rates of post-procedure adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and fewer reinterventions and readmissions compared with PT-GBD in patients with acute cholecystitis who were unfit for surgery.

Supplementary material, Fig. 1s – 3s

 
  • References

  • 1 Mori Y, Itoi T, Baron TH. et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: management strategies for gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2018; 25: 87-95
  • 2 Wu XD, Tian X, Liu MM. et al. Meta-analysis comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 2015; 102: 1302-1313
  • 3 Glenn F. Cholecystostomy in the high risk patient with biliary tract disease. Ann Surg 1977; 185: 185-191
  • 4 Melin MM, Sarr MG, Bender CE. et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy: a valuable technique in high-risk patients with presumed acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 1274-1277
  • 5 Winbladh A, Gullstrand P, Svanvik J. et al. Systematic review of cholecystostomy as a treatment option in acute cholecystitis. HPB (Oxford) 2009; 11: 183-193
  • 6 McKay A, Abulfaraj M, Lipschitz J. Short- and long-term outcomes following percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1343-1351
  • 7 Alvino DML, Fong ZV, McCarthy CJ. et al. Long-term outcomes following percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement for treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2017; 21: 761-769
  • 8 Baron TH, Topazian MD. Endoscopic transduodenal drainage of the gallbladder: implications for endoluminal treatment of gallbladder disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 735-737
  • 9 Lee SS, Park DH, Hwang CY. et al. EUS-guided transmural cholecystostomy as rescue management for acute cholecystitis in elderly or high-risk patients: a prospective feasibility study. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 1008-1012
  • 10 Higgins J, Green S. (eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0. The Cochrane collaboration; 2011 Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org
  • 11 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J 2009; 339: b2700
  • 12 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
  • 13 Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D. et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm
  • 14 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
  • 15 Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. Br Med J 2011; 342: d549
  • 16 Jang JW, Lee SS, Song TJ. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage are comparable for acute cholecystitis. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 805-811
  • 17 Kedia P, Sharaiha RZ, Kumta NA. et al. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage compared with percutaneous drainage. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 1031-1036
  • 18 Tyberg A, Saumoy M, Sequeiros EV. et al. EUS-guided versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage: Isn’t it time to convert?. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016; DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000786.
  • 19 Irani S, Ngamruengphong S, Teoh A. et al. Similar efficacies of endoscopic ultrasound gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent versus percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 738-745
  • 20 Teoh AY, Serna C, Penas I. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage reduces adverse events compared with percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients who are unfit for cholecystectomy. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 130-138
  • 21 Yokoe M, Takada T, Strasberg SM. et al. TG13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2013; 20: 35-46
  • 22 Itoi T, Coelho-Prabhu N, Baron TH. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1038-1045
  • 23 Anderloni A, Buda A, Vieceli F. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural stenting for gallbladder drainage in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 5200-5208
  • 24 Patil R, Ona MA, Papafragkakis C. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided placement of the lumen-apposing self-expandable metallic stent for gallbladder drainage: a promising technique. Ann Gastroenterol 2016; 29: 162-167
  • 25 Davis CA, Landercasper J, Gundersen LH. et al. Effective use of percutaneous cholecystostomy in high-risk surgical patients: techniques, tube management, and results. Arch Surg 1999; 134: 727-731
  • 26 Khan MA, Atiq O, Kubiliun N. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage?. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 76-87