Jayaraj Prasanth1, Manya Prasad2, Soumya Jagannath Mahapatra3, Asuri Krishna1, Om Prakash1, Pramod Kumar Garg3, Virinder Kumar Bansal4. 1. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India. 2. Clinical Research Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India. 4. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India. drvkbansal@aiims.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding the timing of cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) require a systematic summary of current evidence to guide clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early cholecystectomy (EC) versus delayed cholecystectomy (DC) in patients with ABP. METHODS: We searched databases Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials addressing this question. Pairs of reviewers abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was done to study the effect of the timing of cholecystectomy on outcomes of interest in patients with ABP. GRADE methodology was used to rate the quality in the body of evidence for each outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low. RESULTS: 11 randomized trials (1176 participants) were included. High-quality evidence from seven RCTs (867 participants) showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk for recurrent biliary events in favour of early cholecystectomy (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.19, I2 = 0%). High-quality evidence from five trials was in favour of early cholecystectomy with a significant reduction in the risk 7of recurrent pancreatitis (RAP) in comparison to delayed cholecystectomy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.51, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: This review showed that EC has definite advantages over DC in terms of reducing recurrent pancreaticobiliary events and LOS following mild ABP. However, more RCTs are required to study the role of EC in patients with moderately-severe and severe ABP. Trial Registration Protocol registered on Prospero (CRD42020192823).
BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding the timing of cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) require a systematic summary of current evidence to guide clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early cholecystectomy (EC) versus delayed cholecystectomy (DC) in patients with ABP. METHODS: We searched databases Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials addressing this question. Pairs of reviewers abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was done to study the effect of the timing of cholecystectomy on outcomes of interest in patients with ABP. GRADE methodology was used to rate the quality in the body of evidence for each outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low. RESULTS: 11 randomized trials (1176 participants) were included. High-quality evidence from seven RCTs (867 participants) showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk for recurrent biliary events in favour of early cholecystectomy (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.19, I2 = 0%). High-quality evidence from five trials was in favour of early cholecystectomy with a significant reduction in the risk 7of recurrent pancreatitis (RAP) in comparison to delayed cholecystectomy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.51, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: This review showed that EC has definite advantages over DC in terms of reducing recurrent pancreaticobiliary events and LOS following mild ABP. However, more RCTs are required to study the role of EC in patients with moderately-severe and severe ABP. Trial Registration Protocol registered on Prospero (CRD42020192823).
Authors: Krislynn M Mueck; Shuyan Wei; Claudia Pedroza; Karla Bernardi; Margaret L Jackson; Mike K Liang; Tien C Ko; Jon E Tyson; Lillian S Kao Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 12.969