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

Authors

  • 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
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 20 November 2018

accepted after revision 23 April 2019

Publication Date:
25 June 2019 (online)

Preview

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