Percutaneous drainage for acute calculous cholecystitis

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Gallbladder Drainage

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has emerged as a popular alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis who are at high risk for surgery. Multiple cohorts, meta-analyses, and a randomized controlled trial have shown that EUS-GBD has lower rates of recurrent cholecystitis and unplanned reinterventions, while achieving similar technical and clinical success rates than transpapillary cystic duct stenting. The essential steps, precautions in performing EUS-GBD and long-term management will be discussed in this article.

Retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes of ultrasound-guided percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients with and without coagulopathy: a single center's experience

PURPOSE

To compare the complication rate and clinical outcomes for percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) in patients with or without coagulopathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical chart of patients who underwent ultrasound-guided PC with a 8.5-F drainage tube for acute cholecystitis between November 2003 and March 2017. We divided the patients into two groups: patients with coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.5 or platelet count < 50 × 109/L or with a history of anticoagulant medication in preceding 5 days) and patients without coagulopathy. Duration of drainage, duration of hospital stay, 30-day mortality and complication rates were compared between these two groups. Student's t test, Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used for bivariate analyses. Age, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) and sepsis-adjusted complication rates were also compared.

RESULTS

In total, 141 patients had PC (mean age was 73.3 years [SD 13.3]; range 33-96 years; 94 men and 47 women). Fifty-two patients (36.9%) had coagulopathy and 89 patients (63.1%) were without any history of coagulopathy. Hemorrhagic complication rate was 3.5% (5 out of 141 patients, including 4 with coagulopathy and 1 without). One patient with coagulopathy died due to the hemorrhage. Duration of drainage was longer in patients with coagulopathy than patients without coagulopathy (20.0 days vs. 14.8 days; P = 0.033). No significant difference was observed with regard to duration of hospital stay (32.3 days vs. 25.6 days; P = 0.103) and 30-day mortality (7.7% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.062). The overall complication rate did not significantly differ (9.6% and 11.2%; P = 0.763), nor did age, ACCI or sepsis-adjusted complications.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcomes and complications rates after PC did not statistically differ between patients with and without coagulopathy, but there was a tendency of higher risk of hemorrhage in coagulopathy patients. Therefore, the indication of this procedure should be carefully determined.

The Efficacy and Safety of EUS-Guided Gallbladder Drainage as a Bridge to Surgery for Patients with Acute Cholecystitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage as a bridge to surgery in patients with acute cholecystitis unfit for urgent cholecystectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 46 patients who underwent cholecystectomy following endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) or percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) for acute cholecystitis in NTT Tokyo Medical Center. We surveyed 35 patients as the EUS-GBD group and 11 patients as the PTGBD group, and compared the rate of technical success of the cholecystectomy and periprocedural adverse events. A 7-F, 10-cm double pigtail plastic stent was used for ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage.

RESULTS

The rate of technical success of cholecystectomy was 100% in both groups. Regarding postsurgical adverse events, no significant difference was noted between the two groups (EUS-GBD group, 11.4%, vs. PTGBD group, 9.0%; p = 0.472).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-GBD as a BTS seems to be an alternative for patients with AC because it can ensure lower adverse events. On the other hand, there are two major limitations in this study--the sample size is small and there is a risk of selection bias.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus in situ or ex situ percutaneous gallbladder drainage in real-world practice

OBJECTIVES

Many studies showed better outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) when compared with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (P-GBD) in which most tubes were left in situ. However, no studies have directly compared EUS-GBD with P-GBD after tube removal (ex situ). We compared the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and ex situ or in situ P-GBD in high surgical risk patients with acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 182 patients (EUS-GBD, n = 75; P-GBD, n = 107) who underwent gallbladder drainage. The procedural outcomes, long-term outcomes, and adverse events were compared.

RESULTS

The EUS-GBD group and the P-GBD group had similar rates of technical and clinical success. Early adverse events were less common in the EUS-GBD group (5.5% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.010). The long-term outcomes were evaluated in 168 patients (EUS-GBD, n = 67; P-GBD ex situ, n = 84; P-GBD in situ, n = 17). The rate of cholecystitis recurrence in the EUS-GBD group (6.0%) was similar to that in the P-GBD ex situ group (9.6%, P = 0.422), but significantly lower than that in the P-GBD in situ group (23.5%, P = 0.049). P-GBD in situ was a significant predictor of recurrent cholecystitis (hazard ratio 14.6; 95% confidence interval 2.9-72.8).

CONCLUSION

The long-term recurrence rate of acute cholecystitis in patients who underwent EUS-GBD was comparable to that in patients whose P-GBD could be removed. However, patients in whom P-GBD could not be removed showed higher rates of recurrent cholecystitis than patients with EUS-GBD.

Persistent acute cholecystitis after cholecystostomy - increased mortality due to treatment approach?

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is a treatment option for acute cholecystitis (AC) in cases where cholecystectomy (CCY) is not feasible due to limited health conditions. The use of PC remains questionable. The aim was to retrospectively analyse the outcome of patients after PC.

METHODS

All patients who underwent PC for AC at a tertiary referral hospital over 10 years were included. Descriptive statistics, analysed mortality with and without CCY after PC, and a multivariable logistic regression for potential confounder and a landmark sensitivity analysis for immortal time bias were used.

RESULTS

Of 158 patients, 79 were treated with PC alone and 79 had PC with subsequent CCY. Without CCY, 48% (38 patients) died compared to 9% with CCY. In the multivariable analysis CCY was associated with 85% lower risk of mortality. The landmark analysis was compatible with the main analyses. Direct PC-complications occurred in 17% patients. Histologically, 22/75 (29%) specimens showed chronic cholecystitis, and 76% AC.

CONCLUSION

Due to the high mortality rate of PC alone, performing up-front CCY is proposed. PC represents no definitive treatment for AC and should remain a short-term solution because of the persistent inflammatory focus. According to these findings, almost all specimens showed persistent inflammation.

Minimally Invasive Management of Acute Cholecystitis and Frailty Assessment in Geriatric Patients

The aim was to compare laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with the percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) for the management of acute lithiasic cholecystitis in geriatric patients and investigate the decision-making using frailty assessment. A retrospective analysis was performed in all patients aged over 65 years who were treated for acute cholecystitis at our hospital in a period of 5 years. Patients were divided in LC and PC groups. In total, 111 (54.1%) patients were subjected to LC and 94 (45.9%) to PC. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and the Clinical Frailty Score were lower for the LC group. However, for patients over 85 years of age, frailty scores between groups were not statistically different. Morbidity and mortality between groups were not statistically different. Both LC and PC are safe and efficient in geriatric patients. Frailty score may better drive the selection of patients to be managed laparoscopically.

The Role of Series Cholecystectomy in High Risk Acute Cholecystitis Patients Who Underwent Gallbladder Drainage

Background: Cholecystectomy (CCY) is the only definitive therapy for acute cholecystitis. We conducted this study to evaluate which patients may not benefit from further CCY after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) has been performed in acute cholecystitis patients.

Methods: Acute cholecystitis patients with PTGBD treatment were selected from one million random samples from the National Health Insurance Research Database obtained between January 2004 and December 2010. Recurrent biliary events (RBEs), RBE-related medical costs, RBE-related mortality rate and an RBE-free survival curve were compared in patients who accepted CCY within 2 months and patients without CCY within 2 months after the index admission.

Results: Three hundred and sixty-five acute cholecystitis patients underwent PTGBD at the index admission. A total of 190 patients underwent further CCY within 2 months after the index admission. The other 175 patients did not accept further CCY within 2 months after the index admission. RBE-free survival was significantly better in the CCY within 2 months group (60 vs. 42%, p < 0.001). The RBE-free survival of the CCY within 2 months group was similar to that of the no CCY within 2 months group in patients ≥ 80 years old and patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score ≥ 9.

Conclusions: We confirmed CCY after PTGBD reduced RBEs, RBE-related medical expenses, and the RBE-related mortality rate in patients with acute cholecystitis. In patients who accepted PTGBD, the RBE and survival benefits of subsequent CCY within 2 months became insignificant in patients ≥ 80 years old or with a CCI score ≥ 9.

Role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in all-comers with acute cholecystitis according to current guidelines in a general surgical unit

Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is a very common complication of gallstone-related disease. Its currently recommended management changes according to severity of disease and fitness for surgery. The aim of this observational study is to assess the short- and long-term outcomes in all-comers admitted with diagnosis of ACC, treated according to 2013 Tokyo Guidelines (TG13). A retrospective analysis was conducted on a prospectively maintained database of 125 patients with diagnosis of ACC consecutively admitted between January 2017 and September 2019, subdivided in three groups according to TG13: percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC group), cholecystectomy (CH group), and conservative medical treatment (MT group). The primary end point was a composite of morbidity and/or mortality rates; the secondary end points were ACC recurrence, readmission, need for cholecystectomy rates and overall length of hospital stay (LOS). After a median follow-up of 639 days, overall morbidity rate was 20.8% and mortality rate was 6.4%. Death was directly related to AC during the index admission in two out of eight cases. There were no significant differences in primary end point according to the treatment group. Concerning secondary end points, ACC recurrence rate was not significantly different after PC (10.0%) or MT (9.1%); the readmission rates were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the MT group (48.5%) and in the PC group (25.0%) than in the CH group (5.8%); need for cholecystectomy rates was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the MT group (42.4%) than in the PC group (20.0%); median overall LOS was significantly higher in the PC (16 days) than in the MT (9 days) and than in the CH group (5 days). PC is an effective and safe rescue procedure in high-risk patients with ACC, representing a definitive treatment in 80% of cases of this specific subgroup.

An Image-Based Mobile Health App for Postdrainage Monitoring: Usability Study

Background

The application of mobile health (mHealth) platforms to monitor recovery in the postdischarge period has increased in recent years. Despite widespread enthusiasm for mHealth, few studies have evaluated the usability and user experience of mHealth in patients with surgical drainage.

Objective

Our objectives were to (1) develop an image-based smartphone app, SurgCare, for postdrainage monitoring and (2) determine the feasibility and clinical value of the use of SurgCare by patients with drainage.

Methods

We enrolled 80 patients with biliary or peritoneal drainage in this study. A total of 50 patients were assigned to the SurgCare group, who recorded drainage monitoring data with the smartphone app; and 30 patients who manually recorded the data were assigned to the conventional group. The patients continued to record data until drain removal. The primary aim was to validate feasibility for the user, which was defined as the proportion of patients using each element of the system. Moreover, the secondary aim was to evaluate the association of compliance with SurgCare and the occurrence of unexpected events.

Results

The average submission duration was 14.98 days, and the overall daily submission rate was 84.2%. The average system usability scale was 83.7 (SD 3.5). This system met the definition of “definitely feasible” in 34 patients, “possibly feasible” in 10 patients, and “not feasible” in 3 patients. We found that the occurrence rates of complications in the SurgCare group and the conventional group were 6% and 26%, respectively, with statistically significant differences P=.03. The rate of unexpected hospital return was lower in the SurgCare group (6%) than in the conventional groups (26%) (P=.03).

Conclusions

Patients can learn to use a smartphone app for postdischarge drainage monitoring with high levels of user satisfaction. We also identified a high degree of compliance with app-based drainage-recording design features, which is an aspect of mHealth that can improve surgical care.

Endosonography-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy in very high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: an international randomised multicentre controlled superiority trial (DRAC 1)

OBJECTIVE

The optimal management of acute cholecystitis in patients at very high risk for cholecystectomy is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PT-GBD) as a definitive treatment in these patients under a randomised controlled trial.

DESIGN

Consecutive patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis but were at very high-risk for cholecystectomy were recruited. The primary outcome was the 1-year adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, pain scores, unplanned readmissions, re-interventions and mortalities.

RESULTS

Between August 2014 to February 2018, 80 patients were recruited. EUS-GBD significantly reduced 1 year adverse events (10 (25.6%) vs 31 (77.5%), p<0.001), 30-day adverse events (5 (12.8%) vs 19 (47.5%), p=0.010), re-interventions after 30 days (1/39 (2.6%) vs 12/40 (30%), p=0.001), number of unplanned readmissions (6/39 (15.4%) vs 20/40 (50%), p=0.002) and recurrent cholecystitis (1/39 (2.6%) vs 8/40 (20%), p=0.029). Postprocedural pain scores and analgesic requirements were also less (p=0.034). The technical success (97.4% vs 100%, p=0.494), clinical success (92.3% vs 92.5%, p=1) and 30-day mortality (7.7% vs 10%, p=1) were statistically similar. The predictor to recurrent acute cholecystitis was the performance of PT-GBD (OR (95% CI)=5.63 (1.20-53.90), p=0.027).

CONCLUSION

EUS-GBD improved outcomes as compared to PT-GBD in those patients that not candidates for cholecystectomy. EUS-GBD should be the procedure of choice provided that the expertise is available after a multi-disciplinary meeting. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02212717.

Clinical and Survival Outcomes Using Percutaneous Cholecystostomy Tube Alone or Subsequent Interval Cholecystectomy to Treat Acute Cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PCT) is a safe method of gallbladder drainage in the setting of severe or complicated acute cholecystitis (AC), particularly in patients who are high-risk surgical candidates. Small case series suggest that PCT aids resolution of acute cholecystitis in up to 90% of patients. However, reluctance is observed in utilising PCT more frequently, due to concerns that we are committing comorbid patients to an interval surgical procedure for which they may not be suitable.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and survival outcomes of PCT use, with particular emphasis on a subgroup of patients who did not proceed to cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients with severe acute cholecystitis who required PCT insertion in a tertiary referral hospital from 2010 to 2015. Patient demographics and clinical data including systemic inflammatory response (SIRS) scores at presentation, readmissions and clinical and survival outcomes were analysed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.22 and GraphPad Prism v.7.

RESULTS

In total, 157 patients (59% males) with AC underwent PCT insertion during the study period. Median age at presentation was 71 years (range 29-94). A median SIRS score of 3 was noted at presentation. Patients required a median of two cholecystostomy tube changes/replacements (range 1-10) during treatment. Transhepatic tube placement was the preferred approach (69%) with 31% of tubes being placed via transabdominal approach. Only 55% proceeded to interval cholecystectomy. Of the 70 patients treated with PCT alone, their median age was 75 years. In this subgroup, only 12.9% (n = 9) developed recurrent biliary sepsis necessitating readmission following initial resolution of symptoms and tube removal. All episodes of recurrent biliary sepsis presented within 6 months of index presentation, and definitive PCT removal in this group was performed at a median of 3 months. No difference in survival was observed between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Almost 90% of patients with AC who are managed definitively with a PCT will recover uneventfully without recurrent sepsis following PCT removal. This is a viable option for older, comorbid patients who are unfit for surgical intervention and is not associated with significantly increased mortality.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is an evolving role for EUS-guided transmural gallbladder (GB) drainage. Endoscopic transpapillary GB drainage is a well-established, nonoperative treatment for acute cholecystitis. We compared the outcomes of 78 cases of EUS-guided versus transpapillary GB drainage at a single, U.S.-based, high-volume endoscopy center.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis performed from May 2013 to January 2018, identified from a database of nonoperative patients with acute cholecystitis. Both electrocautery-enhanced and nonelectrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents were used. For transpapillary drainage, guidewire access was obtained and then a transpapillary 7F × 15-cm double-pigtail plastic stent was placed.

RESULTS

In patients who had successful transpapillary or transmural drainage, demographics data were similar. Technical success was observed in 39 of 40 patients (97.5%) who underwent first attempt at EUS-guided drainage versus 32 of 38 patients (84.2%) for first-attempt transpapillary drainage (adjusted odds ratio, 9.83; 95% confidence interval, .93-103.86). Clinical success was significantly higher with EUS drainage in 38 of 40 patients (95.0%) versus transpapillary drainage in 29 of 38 patients (76.3%) (adjusted odds ratio, 7.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-38.52). Recurrent cholecystitis was lower in the EUS-guided drainage group (2.6% vs 18.8%, respectively; P = .023) on univariate analysis but only trended to significance in a multiple regression model. Duration of follow-up, reintervention rates, hospital length of stay, and overall adverse event rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided GB drainage results in a higher clinical success rate compared with transpapillary drainage and may be associated with a lower recurrence rate of cholecystitis. However, transpapillary drainage should be considered as the first-line treatment for patients who are surgical candidates but require temporizing measures or require an ERCP for alternative reasons.

Initial experience with endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage

Introduction

Patients with acute cholecystitis who are unsuitable for cholecystectomy undergo conservative treatment or percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage. As these two methods are not always successful, further treatment options are needed. One increasingly popular method is endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUSGBD), whereby stents are placed so as to create a permanent fistula connecting the gallbladder to the stomach or the duodenal bulb, thus enabling drainage of its contents to the gastrointestinal tract.

Aim

To present our early experience with EUSGBD for the treatment of cholecystitis in patients who are not suitable for cholecystectomy.

Material and methods

The procedure was performed in 5 patients with acute cholecystitis. Two patients also had symptoms of biliary obstruction due to pancreatic head cancer. An ultrasound endoscope was used to create a fistula between the gallbladder and the stomach or between the gallbladder and the duodenal bulb, in which a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) was placed.

Results

All procedures were performed with no perioperative complications. In all patients, the clinical symptoms of cholecystitis subsided within 3-15 days. In those patients who also showed symptoms of biliary obstruction, these symptoms subsided within 3-6 days following the procedure.

Conclusions

The EUSGBD seems to be an effective and safe treatment for acute cholecystitis in patients unsuitable for cholecystectomy. It can also be used to treat jaundice caused by obstruction of the common bile duct, when no other methods can be used. The method is particularly promising in cases of concurrent acute cholecystitis and common bile duct obstruction.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): multicentre randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis.

DESIGN

Multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

SETTING

11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year.

RESULTS

The trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register NTR2666.

Current Status of Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage

The gold standard for treatment of acute cholecystitis is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, cholecystectomy is often not suitable for surgically unfit patients who are too frail due to various co-morbidities. As such, several less invasive endoscopic treatment modalities have been developed to control sepsis, either as a definitive treatment or as a temporizing modality until the patient is stable enough to undergo cholecystectomy at a later stage. Recent developments in endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with endoscopic ultrasound EUS-specific stents having lumen-apposing properties have demonstrated potential as a definitive treatment modality. Furthermore, advanced gallbladder procedures can be performed using the stents as a portal. With similar effectiveness as percutaneous transhepatic cholecystostomy and lower rates of adverse events reported in some studies, EUS-GBD has opened exciting possibilities in becoming the next best alternative in treating acute cholecystitis in surgically unfit patients. The aim of this review article is to provide a summary of the various methods of gallbladder drainage GBD with particular focus on EUS-GBD and the many new prospects it allows.

Cholecystostomy Treatment in an ICU Population: Complications and Risks

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement has widely been used as an alternative treatment to cholecystectomy, especially in advanced disease or critically ill patients. Reported postprocedural complication rates have varied significantly over the last decade. The goal of this study is to evaluate the safety of percutaneous cholecystostomy tube treatment in critically ill patients.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective chart analysis of 96 critically ill patients who underwent cholecystostomy tube placement during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay between 2005 and 2010 in a tertiary care center in central Massachusetts. Complications within 72 hours of cholecystostomy tube placement and any morbidity or mortality relating to presence of cholecystostomy tube were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 65 male and 31 female patients with a mean age of 67.4 years underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement during an ICU stay. Sixty-six patients experienced a total of 121 complications, resulting in an overall complication rate of 69%. Fifty-four of these complications resulted from the actual procedure or the presence of the cholecystostomy tube; the other 67 complications occurred within 72 hours of the cholecystostomy procedure. Ten patients died. Tube dislodgment was the most common complication with a total of 34 episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cholecystostomy tube placement is associated with frequent complications, the most common of which is tube dislodgment. Severe complications may contribute to serious morbidity and death in an ICU population. Complication rates may be underreported in the medical literature. The potential impact of cholecystostomy tube placement in critically ill patients should not be underestimated.

Transpapillary Gallbladder Stents Can Stabilize or Improve Decompensated Cirrhosis in Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation

GOALS

To describe the short-term and long-term outcomes in 34 consecutive decompensated cirrhotic patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing transpapillary gallbladder stent (TGS) placement.

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic TGS placement is a minimally invasive means of treating symptomatic gallbladder disease in poor surgical candidates.

STUDY

Between June 2005 and June 2011, 34 patients with cirrhosis and symptomatic gallbladder disease underwent attempted TGS placement.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 52 years, 56% were hospitalized, and 48% were listed for liver transplantation. The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 15 (range, 6 to 40) and 88% were Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B/C. A double pigtailed stent was successfully placed in 94% of the patients. At 1-month follow-up, clinical improvement was noted in 82% of the treated subjects and the MELD scores in 14 of 22 (64%) evaluable subjects improved or stabilized. Actuarial transplant-free survival was 53% in the liver transplant candidates with a mean follow-up of 352 days, whereas survival was 44% in the 18 nontransplant candidates with a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. Periprocedural complications included pancreatitis in 5 patients, cholangitis in 3, and 1 patient with cystic duct perforation. In addition, 2 subjects had symptomatic bleeding from traumatic duodenal ulcerations 2 years after TGS placement that necessitated stent removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic TGS placement was technically feasible in 94% of decompensated cirrhotics and was associated with a relatively low rate of periprocedural (26%) and long-term complications (6%). Stabilization or improvement in clinical status and MELD scores was seen in the majority of treated patients.

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis

Background/Aims

Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for cholecystitis. However, gallbladder stenting (GBS) has shown promise in debilitated or high-risk patients. Endoscopic transpapillary GBS and endoscopic ultrasound-guided GBS (EUS-GBS) have been proposed as safe and effective modalities for gallbladder drainage.

Methods

Data from patients with cholecystitis were prospectively collected from August 2004 to May 2013 from two United States academic university hospitals and analyzed retrospectively. The following treatment algorithm was adopted. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy and cystic duct stenting was initially attempted. If deemed feasible by the endoscopist, EUS-GBS was then pursued.

Results

During the study period, 139 patients underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage. Among these, drainage was performed in 94 and 45 cases for benign and malignant indications, respectively. Successful endoscopic gallbladder drainage was defined as decompression of the gallbladder without incidence of cholecystitis, and was achieved with ERCP and cystic duct stenting in 117 of 128 cases (91%). Successful endoscopic gallbladder drainage was also achieved with EUS-guided gallbladder drainage using transmural stent placement in 11 of 11 cases (100%). Complications occurred in 11 cases (8%).

Conclusions

Endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques are safe and efficacious methods for gallbladder decompression in non-surgical patients with comorbidities.

The safety and efficacy of percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage in elderly patients with acute cholecystitis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard management for acute cholecystitis. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) may be an alternative interim strategy before surgery in elderly patients with comorbidities. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PTGBD for elderly patients (>60 years) with acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

We reviewed consecutive patients diagnosed with acute cholecystitis between January 2009 and December 2013. Group I included patients who underwent PTGBD, and patients of group II did not undergo PTGBD before LC.

RESULTS

All 116 patients (72.7 ± 7.1 years) were analyzed. The preoperative details of group I (n = 39) and group II (n = 77) were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.057) and intraoperative estimated blood loss (P = 0.291). The rate of conversion to open operation of group I was significantly lower than that of group II (12.8% vs. 32.5%, P < 0.050). No significant difference of postoperative morbidity was found between the two groups (25.6% vs. 26.0%, P = 0.969). In addition, perioperative mortality was not significantly different. Preoperative hospital stay of group I was significantly longer than that of group II (10.3 ± 5.7 days vs. 4.4 ± 2.8 days, P < 0.050). However, two groups were not significantly different in total hospital stay (16.3 ± 9.0 days vs. 13.4 ± 6.5 days, P = 0.074).

CONCLUSION

PTGBD is a proper preoperative management before LC for elderly patients with acute cholecystitis.

Role of percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration in the early management of acute cholecystitis

OBJECTIVE

Early cholecystectomy is currently the gold standard treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC). However, the acceptability and safety of this strategy remain in dispute. The aim of this study was to clarify the role of percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration (PTGBA) in the early management of AC in a single center.

METHODS

A total of 147 consecutive patients who were treated with PTGBA for AC from 2008 to 2012 were included in the study. The therapeutic outcomes and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A single PTGBA was adequate for 96 (65.3%) patients with AC. Of the remaining 51 patients, 43 (29.3%) showed an improvement after repeated PTGBA and/or percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD), while semi-emergency cholecystectomy was needed in eight patients. Although five patients experienced adverse events (intra-abdominal hemorrhage in two, bile leakage in two and gallbladder hemorrhage in one), no patient died of treatment-related complications. Subsequently, 87 (59.2%) patients underwent cholecystectomy after PTGBA (a single PTGBA in 48 and repeated PTGBA and/or PTGBD in 39 patients). No significant differences were observed in the conversion rate from laparoscopic surgery to open cholecystectomy, operative time or intraoperative hemorrhage volume between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated the safety and acceptability of treatment with PTGBA for AC at our center. This elective treatment strategy may be a useful alternative option in the treatment of AC.

A nationwide examination of outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy compared with cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, 1998-2010

BACKGROUND

Improvements in percutaneous drainage techniques combined with the recognized advantages of avoiding surgery in critically ill patients have rendered cholecystostomy an attractive treatment option, particularly in those patients with acute acalculus cholecystitis. However, robust data to guide surgeons in choosing cholecystostomy versus cholecystectomy have been lacking.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 1998-2010 was performed. Patients identified as having acute cholecystitis (calculus and acalculus) were identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes and further classified as having undergone cholecystostomy or cholecystectomy. Patients with both procedures were included in the cholecystectomy group. Patients with neither procedure and those younger than age 18 years were excluded. Multivariate analyses examined mortality, length of stay, total charges, gallbladder/gastrointestinal complications, or any complication. Results were adjusted for age, race, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and teaching-hospital status. Subset analyses were performed among patients who survived and patients who died.

RESULTS

A total of 248,229 calculus and 58,518 acalculus acute cholecystitis patients were analyzed. On unadjusted analysis, mortality, length of stay, and total charges were higher, but complication rates were lower, in patients with a cholecystostomy. Adjusted analysis showed lower odds of complications [calculus: odds ratio (OR) 0.3, p < 0.001; acalculus: OR 0.4, p < 0.001] but higher odds of mortality, total charges, and LOS (calculus: mortality OR 5.2, p < 0.001, $29,113, p < 0.001, +5.1 days, p < 0.001; acalculus: mortality OR 3.7, p < 0.001; $43,771, p < 0.001, +6.2 days, p < 0.001) among patients who received cholecystostomy. Results were similar in subset analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving cholecystostomy were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. Among patients with calculus or acalculus cholecystitis, patients with cholecystostomy had decreased complication rates compared with patients with cholecystectomy. However, patients who received cholecystostomy had increased odds of death, longer length of stay, and higher total charges.

The management of acute cholecystitis in chronic hemodialysis patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of acute cholecystitis in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients still remains controversial. Because of underlying disease that can influence surgical results, less invasive alternative managements have been tried over the last decades. The goal of this study was to analyze the results of cholecystectomy versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis (AC) in chronic HD patients.

METHODS

All patients with end-stage renal disease who were treated for AC were identified retrospectively from our medical records. Between July 2007 and September 2011, 47 patients were treated for AC while they were on chronic HD. The records of these patients were reviewed for documented AC and its treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 47 HD patients, 26 (55.3 %) underwent cholecystectomy (CC), while 21 (44. 7 %) had a percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) for AC as an initial treatment. The mean length of follow-up was 20.4 ± 16 months in PC and 18 ± 15 months in CC patients. The success rate was higher in CC patients compared to PC patients (92. 3 versus 66.7 %, p = 0.0698). Eleven (52. 4 %) patients who had PC subsequently underwent CC; six open CC and five delayed laparoscopic CC were performed. Of the 26 patients who underwent CC, 18 were performed emergently due to the persistence of AC-related symptoms and gangrenous and perforated gallbladders. Eight were initially treated conservatively and then underwent elective cholecystectomy at an interval of 32 ± 24 (range = 14-59) days following initial treatment. In emergent CC, 10 (55.6 %) were completed laparoscopically, three were open, and five (33.3 %) had conversions. In elective CC patients, two were conversions, but the remainder (75 %) had laparoscopic CC. Readmission rates were higher in the PC group (33.3 versus 12.5 %, p = 0.1732). Although AC-related mortality was higher in PC patients, there was no statistically significant difference in the patient survival rate between the two groups (Kaplan-Meier analysis, Fig. 1, 19 versus 7.7 %; p = 0.4035), and the overall mortality rate was higher in the PC group (33.7 versus 15.7 %, p = 0.2737).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that the safety and effectiveness of CC has a higher success rate and lower morbidity and mortality rate compared with percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in chronic HD patients.

2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Despite advances in diagnosis, surgery, and antimicrobial therapy, mortality rates associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections remain exceedingly high.The 2013 update of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infections contains evidence-based recommendations for management of patients with intra-abdominal infections.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy in high-risk elderly patients with acute cholecystitis: a lifesaving option

PURPOSE

To analyze the results of percutaneous cholecystostomy in in high-risk elderly patients with acute cholecystitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2010 and May 2011, 11 patients aged over 60 who had at least 1 systemic disease and underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The procedure was technically successful in 10 (90.9%) patients. Clinical improvement was achieved in 81.8% of patients within 72 hours. Two patients received emergency surgery while elective cholecystostomy was performed in 5 patients. Percutaneous cholecystostomy was performed singly in 4 (36.4%) patients. Early complication rate was 18.2%. Two (18.2%) patients died.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous cholecystostomy can be performed with low mortality and morbidity. Cholecystectomy should be performed in all patients with suitable general conditions due to the high recurrence rates of percutaneous cholecystostomy.

Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice.

METHODS/DESIGN

The CHOCOLATE trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. High risk patients, defined as APACHE-II score 7-14, with acute calculous cholecystitis will be randomised to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. During a two year period 284 patients will be enrolled from 30 high volume teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of major complications within three months following randomization and need for re-intervention and mortality during the follow-up period of one year. Secondary endpoints include all other complications, duration of hospital admission, difficulty of procedures and total costs.

DISCUSSION

The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2666.