Alexander Podboy1, Jacky Yuan2, Christopher Donald Stave3, Shannon Melissa Chan4, Joo Ha Hwang1, Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Clinical Research Centre, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sun University. Shenzhen, China. 3. Lane Medical Library, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal method of gallbladder drainage (GBD) for acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the 3 methods of GBD (percutaneous [PT], endoscopic transpapillary [ETP], and EUS-guided). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for all comparative studies assessing the efficacy of either 2 or all modalities used for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients at high risk for cholecystectomy was performed. Primary outcomes of technical and clinical success and postprocedure adverse events were assessed. Secondary outcomes were reintervention, unplanned readmissions, recurrent cholecystitis, and mortality. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified, comprising 1267 patients (472 EUS-GBD, 493 PT-GBD, and 302 ETP-GBD). In the network ranking estimate, PT-GBD and EUS-GBD had the highest likelihood of technical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.00 vs 1.02 vs 2.98) and clinical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.48 vs 1.55 vs 2.98). EUS-GBD had the lowest risk of recurrent cholecystitis (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.089 vs 2.02 vs 2.891). PT-GBD had the highest risk of reintervention (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.81 vs 2.99 vs 1.199) and unplanned readmissions (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.582 vs 2.944 vs 1.474), whereas ETP-GBD was associated with the lowest rates of mortality (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.62 vs 2.09 vs 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 modalities of GBD have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Selection of technique will depend on available expertise. In centers with expertise in endoscopic GBD, the techniques are preferred over PT-GBD with improved outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: CRD42020181972.).
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal method of gallbladder drainage (GBD) for acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the 3 methods of GBD (percutaneous [PT], endoscopic transpapillary [ETP], and EUS-guided). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for all comparative studies assessing the efficacy of either 2 or all modalities used for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients at high risk for cholecystectomy was performed. Primary outcomes of technical and clinical success and postprocedure adverse events were assessed. Secondary outcomes were reintervention, unplanned readmissions, recurrent cholecystitis, and mortality. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified, comprising 1267 patients (472 EUS-GBD, 493 PT-GBD, and 302 ETP-GBD). In the network ranking estimate, PT-GBD and EUS-GBD had the highest likelihood of technical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.00 vs 1.02 vs 2.98) and clinical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.48 vs 1.55 vs 2.98). EUS-GBD had the lowest risk of recurrent cholecystitis (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.089 vs 2.02 vs 2.891). PT-GBD had the highest risk of reintervention (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.81 vs 2.99 vs 1.199) and unplanned readmissions (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.582 vs 2.944 vs 1.474), whereas ETP-GBD was associated with the lowest rates of mortality (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.62 vs 2.09 vs 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 modalities of GBD have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Selection of technique will depend on available expertise. In centers with expertise in endoscopic GBD, the techniques are preferred over PT-GBD with improved outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: CRD42020181972.).
Authors: Arslan Talat; Steven Troy; Prashanth Rau; Mark Hanscom; Anupam Singh; Jaroslav Zivny; Christopher Marshall; Neil B Marya Journal: VideoGIE Date: 2021-12-06
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