Rajesh Krishnamoorthi1,2, Mahendran Jayaraj3, Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar4, Dhruv Singh5, Joanna Law6, Michael Larsen6, Andrew Ross6, Richard Kozarek6, Shayan Irani6. 1. Digestive Diseases Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Rajesh.Krishnamoorthi@virginiamason.org. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. Rajesh.Krishnamoorthi@virginiamason.org. 3. University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 4. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. 5. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Digestive Diseases Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with acute cholecystitis who are deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for gallbladder drainage (GBD). There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic GBD [Endoscopic transpapillary GBD (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in the management of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 857 patients (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD: 259 vs 598 patients) were included in the analysis. EUS-GBD was associated with higher technical [pooled OR 5.22 (95% CI 2.03-13.44; p = 0.0006; I2 = 20%)] and clinical success [pooled OR 4.16 (95% CI 2.00-8.66; p = 0.0001; I2 = 19%)] compared to ET-GBD. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events [pooled OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.77-2.22; p = 0.33, I2 = 0%)]. EUS-GBD was associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis [pooled OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.14-0.79; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%)]. There was low heterogeneity in the analyses. CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD has higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rates of overall adverse events are statistically similar, EUS-GBD has lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. Hence, EUS-GBD is preferable to ET-GBD for endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis in select high-risk surgical patients.
BACKGROUND: In patients with acute cholecystitis who are deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for gallbladder drainage (GBD). There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic GBD [Endoscopic transpapillary GBD (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in the management of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 857 patients (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD: 259 vs 598 patients) were included in the analysis. EUS-GBD was associated with higher technical [pooled OR 5.22 (95% CI 2.03-13.44; p = 0.0006; I2 = 20%)] and clinical success [pooled OR 4.16 (95% CI 2.00-8.66; p = 0.0001; I2 = 19%)] compared to ET-GBD. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events [pooled OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.77-2.22; p = 0.33, I2 = 0%)]. EUS-GBD was associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis [pooled OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.14-0.79; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%)]. There was low heterogeneity in the analyses. CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD has higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rates of overall adverse events are statistically similar, EUS-GBD has lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. Hence, EUS-GBD is preferable to ET-GBD for endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis in select high-risk surgical patients.
Authors: Irene Peñas-Herrero; Carlos de la Serna-Higuera; Manuel Perez-Miranda Journal: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: Jennifer T Higa; Nadav Sahar; Richard A Kozarek; Danielle La Selva; Michael C Larsen; Seng-Ian Gan; Andrew S Ross; Shayan S Irani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; James Woodcock; Jan Brozek; Mark Helfand; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Elie A Akl; Susan Norris; Gunn Vist; Philipp Dahm; Vijay K Shukla; Julian Higgins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-31 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Michael F Byrne; Paul Suhocki; Robert M Mitchell; Theodore N Pappas; Helen L Stiffler; Paul S Jowell; Malcolm S Branch; John Baillie Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Shannon Melissa Chan; Marc Ka Chun Chong; Philip Wai Yan Chiu; Enders Kwok Wai Ng; Martin Chi Sang Wong; Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-08-15