Comparable efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis

The Success Rate Is Lower but Completion Rate of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Is higher in Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage than Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

We investigated the success and complication rates of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) and the outcomes of subsequent cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

Patients (N=178) who underwent cholecystectomy after ETGBD or PTGBD were retrospectively assessed.

RESULTS

ETGBD was successful in 47 (85.5%) of 55 procedures, whereas PTGBD was successful in 123 (100%) of 123 sessions ( P <0.001). Complications related to ETGBD and PTGBD occurred in 6 (12.8%) of 47 and 16 (13.0%) of 123 patients, respectively ( P =0.97). After propensity matching, 43 patients from each group were selected. Median time from drainage to cholecystectomy was 48 (14 to 560) days with ETGBD and 35 (1 to 90) days with PTGBD ( P =0.004). Laparoscopy was selected more often in the ETGBD group (97.7%) than in the PTGBD group (79.1%) ( P =0.007), and conversion from laparoscopy to open cholecystectomy was more common with PTGBD (41.2%) than with ETGBD (7.1%) ( P <0.001). Mean operation time was significantly shorter with ETGBD (135.8±66.7 min) than with PTGBD (195.8±62.2 min) ( P <0.001). The incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III postoperative complications was 9.3% with ETGBD and 11.6% with PTGBD ( P =0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate is lower but completion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is more in endoscopic gallbladder drainage than percutaneous gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis.

Role of advanced endoscopy in the management of inflammatory digestive diseases (pancreas and biliary tract)

The progress of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment for inflammatory diseases of the biliary tract and pancreas have been remarkable. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-elastography are used for the diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis and evaluation of endocrine and exocrine function in chronic pancreatitis. Notably, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy have improved the endoscopic stone removal rate in patients for whom pancreatic stone removal is difficult. Studies have reported the use of self-expanding metal stents for stent placement for pancreatic duct stenosis and EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for refractory pancreatic duct strictures. Furthermore, EUS-guided drainage using a double-pigtailed plastic stent has been performed for the management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection after acute pancreatitis. Recently, lumen-apposing metal stents have led to advances in the treatment of walled-off necrosis after acute pancreatitis. EUS-guided biliary drainage is an alternative to refractory endoscopic biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for the treatment of acute cholangitis. The placement of an inside stent followed by switching to uncovered self-expanding metal stents in difficult-to-treat cases has been proposed for acute cholangitis by malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage is an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for severe and some cases of moderate acute cholecystitis. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage has been reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage. However, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each drainage method and select the optimal drainage method for each case.

Assessment of Gallbladder Drainage Methods in the Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis: A Literature Review

Gallbladder drainage is a treatment option in high-risk surgical patients with moderate or severe acute cholecystitis. It may be applied as a bridge to cholecystectomy or a definitive treatment option. Apart from the simple and widely accessible percutaneous cholecystostomy, new attractive techniques have emerged in the previous decade, including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage. The aim of this paper is to present currently available drainage techniques in the treatment of AC; evaluate their technical and clinical effectiveness, advantages, possible adverse events, and patient outcomes; and illuminate the decision-making path when choosing among various treatment modalities for each patient, depending on their clinical characteristics and the accessibility of methods.

Strategy Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage to Percutaneous Transhepatic Gallbladder Drainage, Following Failed Emergent Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is recommended for patients with acute cholecystitis at high risk for surgery/percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has higher success and mortality rates than ETGBD. Optimal endoscopic drainage remains controversial. Patients with moderate/severe acute cholecystitis and high risk for surgery/PTGBD who underwent ETGBD were enrolled. In the new-ETGBD (N-ETGBD)/traditional-ETGBD (T-ETGBD) strategy, patients in whom the initial ETGBD failed underwent rescue-EUS-GBD in the same endoscopic session/rescue-PTGBD, respectively. Therapeutic outcomes were compared. Patients who could not undergo rescue-EUS-GBD/PTGBD owing to poor general conditions received conservative treatment. Technical success was defined as successful ETGBD or successful rescue-EUS-GBD/PTGBD. Forty-one/forty patients were enrolled in the N-ETGBD/T-ETGBD groups, respectively. The N-ETGBD group had a higher, though non-significant, technical success rate compared to the T-ETGBD group (97.6 vs. 90.0%, p = 0.157). The endoscopic technical success rate was significantly higher in the N-ETGBD than in the T-ETGBD group (97.6 vs. 82.5%, p = 0.023). The clinical success/adverse event rates were similar between both groups. The hospitalization duration was significantly shorter in the N-ETGBD than in the T-ETGBD group (6.6 ± 3.9 vs. 10.1 ± 6.4 days, p < 0.001). ETGBD with EUS-GBD as a rescue backup may be an ideal hybrid drainage for emergency endoscopic gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients.

Endoscopic Management of Acute Cholecystitis

Endoscopic drainage of the gallbladder for acute cholecystitis can be performed with the transpapillary method or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided method. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is gaining popularity as the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis in patients who are deemed high-risk for cholecystectomy (CCY). It provides an alternative to percutaneous drainage and laparoscopic CCY in these patients. With the development of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), the procedure is associated with high rates of technical and clinical success with low rates of adverse events (AEs). The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the current status of EUS-GBD including the indications, techniques, stent systems in-use, and how the procedure compares to conventional techniques are outlined. Furthermore, the feasibility of cholecystoscopy and advanced gallbladder interventions is explored. Finally, a comparison in outcomes of EUS-GBD versus laparoscopic CCY is provided giving some initial data in support of the procedure as an alternative to surgery in a selected group of patients.

Efficacy of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis

Background

Early cholecystectomy is recommended for patients with acute cholecystitis. However, emergency surgery may not be indicated due to complications and disease severity. Patients requiring drainage are usually treated with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD), whereas patients with biliary duct stones undergo endoscopic stones removal followed by endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD). Herein, we investigated the efficacy of EGBD in patients with acute cholecystitis.

Methods

Overall, 101 patients receiving laparoscopic cholecystectomy between September 2019 and September 2020 in our department were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The patients (n = 101) were divided into three groups: control group that did not undergo drainage (n = 68), a group that underwent EGBD (n = 7), and a group that underwent PTGBD (n = 26). Median surgery time was 107, 166, and 143 min, respectively. Control group had a significantly shorter surgery time, whereas it did not significantly differ between EGBD and PTGBD groups. The median amount of bleeding was 5 g, 7 g, and 7.5 g, respectively, and control group had significantly less bleeding than the drainage group. We further divided patients into the following subgroups: patients requiring a 5 mm clip to ligate the cystic duct, patients requiring a 10 mm clip due to the thickness of the cystic duct, patients requiring an automatic suturing device, and patients undergoing subtotal cholecystectomy due to impossible cystic duct ligation. There was no significant difference between EGBD and PTGBD regarding the clip used or the need for an automatic suturing device and subtotal cholecystectomy.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference between EGBD and PTGBD groups regarding surgery time or bleeding amount when surgery was performed after gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis. Therefore, EGBD was considered a useful preoperative drainage method requiring no drainage bag.

Ultimate outcomes of three modalities for non-surgical gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis with or without concomitant common bile duct stones

Backgrounds/Aims

In moderate and high-surgical risk patients with acute cholecystitis, studies comparing percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) vs. endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGS) vs. endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural gallbladder stenting (EUGS) are limited. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare efficacy and recurrence of cholecystitis after PC, ETGS, or EUGS during follow-up.

Methods

We reviewed 143 moderate and high-surgical risk patients with acute cholecystitis with or without concomitant common bile duct stones who underwent PC, ETGS, or EUGS at our hospital. Technical success rate (TSR), clinical success rate (CSR), and recurrence were compared.

Results

TSR in PC or EUGS group was higher than that in the ETGS group for those with concomitant common bile duct stones (100% vs. 100% vs. 73.2%; p = 0.07) and for those without concomitant common bile duct stones (100% vs. 100% vs. 77.3%; p < 0.001). CSR in ETGS or EUGS group was higher than that in the PC group for those with concomitant common bile duct stones (96.2% vs. 100% vs. 87.5%; p = 0.41) and for those without concomitant common bile duct stones (94.1% vs. 100% vs. 63.0%; p = 0.006). Using Kaplan–Meier analysis, the overall recurrent risk was the highest in the PC group (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

In moderate and high-surgical risk patients with acute cholecystitis, EUGS provides significantly higher CSR with comparable TSR to PC. Thus, ETGS should be the first choice in those with concomitant common bile duct stones. Among the three patient groups, those who received PC had the highest rate of recurrence.

Transpapillary gallbladder stent placement for long-term therapy of acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Select patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) are poor candidates for cholecystectomy. ERCP-guided transpapillary gallbladder (GB) drainage (ERGD) is one modality for nonoperative management of AC in these patients. Our primary aim was to evaluate long-term success of destination ERGD. Secondary aims were the rate of technical and clinical success, number of repeat procedures, rate of adverse events, and risk factors for recurrent AC.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AC who were not candidates for cholecystectomy underwent ERGD with attempted transpapillary GB plastic double-pigtail stent placement at a tertiary hospital from January 2008 to December 2019. Long-term success was defined as no AC after ERGD until 6 months, death, or reintervention. Technical success was defined as placement of at least 1 transpapillary stent into the GB and clinical success as resolution of AC symptoms with discharge from the hospital.

RESULTS

Long-term success was achieved in 95.9% of patients (47/49), technical success in 96% (49/51), and clinical success 100% in those with technical success. Mild adverse events occurred in 5.9% (n = 3). Mean follow-up was 453 days after ERGD (range, 18-1879). A trend toward longer time to recurrence of AC was seen in patients with 2 rather than 1 GB stent placed (P = .13), and more repeat procedures were performed when a single stent was placed (P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

ERGD with transpapillary GB double-pigtail stent placement is a safe and effective long-term therapy for poor surgical candidates with AC. Risk factors for recurrence include stent removal and single-stent therapy. Double-stent therapy is not always technically feasible but may salvage failed single-stent therapy or recurrence after elective stent removal and may therefore be the preferred treatment modality.

Endoscopic therapies for gallbladder drainage

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis has expanded in patients who are considered nonoperative candidates. Traditionally managed with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), improvement in techniques and devices has led to increased use of endoscopic methods for gallbladder drainage. This document reviews technical aspects of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD) as well as their respective technical/clinical success and adverse event rates. Available comparative data are also reviewed among nonsurgical gallbladder drainage techniques (PC, ET-GBD, and EUS-GBD).

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched through March 2021 for relevant articles by using keywords including "acute cholecystitis," "interventional EUS," "percutaneous cholecystostomy," "transpapillary gallbladder drainage," "EUS-guided gallbladder drainage," "lumen-apposing metal stent," "gallbladder stenting," and "endoscopic gallbladder drainage." The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board.

RESULTS

Multiple studies have demonstrated acceptable outcomes comparing PC and both endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques, ET-GBD and EUS-GBD. Published data suggest that endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques may be associated with lower rates of adverse events and improved quality of life. However, there are important clinical considerations for choosing among these treatment options, requiring a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to therapeutic decision-making in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of EUS-GBD and ET-GBD in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis may result in favorable outcomes when compared with PC. Further improvements in techniques and training should lead to more widespread acceptance and dissemination of these treatment options.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage has been the most frequently performed treatment for acute cholecystitis for patients who are not candidates for surgery. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) has evolved into an alternative treatment. There have been numerous retrospective and prospective studies evaluating ETGBD for acute cholecystitis, though results have been variable.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ETGBD in the treatment of inoperable patients with acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of major literature databases including PubMed, OVID, Science Direct, Google Scholar (from inception to March 2021) to identify studies reporting technical and clinical success, and post procedure adverse events in ETGBD. Weighted pooled rates were then calculated using fixed effects models for technical and clinical success, and post procedure adverse events, including recurrent cholecystitis.

RESULTS

We found 21 relevant articles that were then included in the study. In all 1307 patients were identified. The pooled technical success rate was 82.62% [95% confidence interval (CI): 80.63-84.52]. The pooled clinical success rate was found to be 94.87% (95%CI: 93.54-96.05). The pooled overall complication rate was 8.83% (95%CI: 7.42-10.34). Pooled rates of post procedure adverse events were bleeding 1.03% (95%CI: 0.58-1.62), perforation 0.78% (95%CI: 0.39-1.29), peritonitis/bile leak 0.45% (95%CI: 0.17-0.87), and pancreatitis 1.98% (95%CI: 1.33-2.76). The pooled rates of stent occlusion and migration were 0.39% (95%CI: 0.13-0.78) and 1.3% (95%CI: 0.75-1.99) respectively. The pooled rate of cholecystitis recurrence following ETGBD was 1.48% (95%CI: 0.92-2.16).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that ETGBD is a feasible and efficacious treatment for inoperable patients with acute cholecystitis.

Endoscopic gallbladder drainage for symptomatic gallbladder disease: a cumulative systematic review meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural or endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary drainage may provide alternative treatment strategies for high-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic gallbladder (GB) disease. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic GB drainage for patients with symptomatic GB disease.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pooled proportions were calculated for measured outcomes including technical success, clinical success, adverse event rate, recurrence rate, and rate of reintervention. Subgroup analyses were performed for transmural versus transpapillary, transmural lumen apposing stent (LAMS), and comparison to percutaneous transhepatic drainage. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (n = 1538) were included. Overall, endoscopic GB drainage achieved a technical and clinical success of 87.33% [(95% CI 84.42-89.77); I² = 39.55] and 84.16% [(95% CI 80.30-87.38); I² = 52.61], with an adverse event rate of 11.00% [(95% CI 9.25-13.03); I² = 7.08]. On subgroup analyses, EUS-guided transmural compared to ERC-assisted transpapillary drainage resulted in higher technical and clinical success rates [OR 3.91 (95% CI 1.52-10.09); P = 0.005 and OR 4.59 (95% CI 1.84-11.46); P = 0.001] and lower recurrence rate [OR 0.17 (95% CI 0.06-0.52); P = 0.002]. Among EUS-guided LAMS studies, technical success was 94.65% [(95% CI 91.54-96.67); I² = 0.00], clinical success was 92.06% [(95% CI 88.65-94.51); I² = 0.00], and adverse event rate was 11.71% [(95% CI 8.92-15.23); I² = 0.00]. Compared to percutaneous drainage, EUS-guided drainage possessed a similar efficacy and safety with significantly lower rate of reintervention [OR 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.13); P < 0.001].

DISCUSSION

Endoscopic GB drainage is a safe and effective treatment for high-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic GB disease. EUS-guided transmural drainage is superior to transpapillary drainage and associated with a lower rate of reintervention compared to percutaneous transhepatic drainage.

Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis

The mainstay of management of acute cholecystitis has been surgical, with percutaneous gallbladder drainage in patients deemed high risk for surgical intervention. Endoscopic management of acute cholecytitis with transpapillary and transmural drainage of the gall bladder is emerging as a viable alternative in high-risk surgical patients. In this article, we discuss the background, current status, technical challenges and strategies to overcome them, adverse events, and outcomes of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis.

Comparison of EUS-guided endoscopic transpapillary and percutaneous gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

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.).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage: a technical review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has emerged as a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to both percutaneous and endoscopic transpapillary GBD in patients with acute cholecystitis. Over the last few years, the technique, as well as the indications for EUS-GBD have been gradually evolving, and the procedure has become simpler and safer as the accepted indications have expanded. The development of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has allowed us to realize the dream of creating endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomoses, and has thus paved the way for a safer EUS-GBD. Single step EUS-guided LAMS delivery systems have obviated the use of other endoscopic accessories and thus made EUS-GBD simpler and safer. However, EUS-GBD can be associated with potentially serious complications, and therefore should be performed by expert interventional endosonologists at centers with surgical and radiological back up. EUS-GBD is a relatively new procedure still in its infancy, but continued improvement in EUS accessories and dedicated stents will make this procedure safer and also expand its current indications. This review focuses on the technical aspects, including procedural details, as well as the complications of EUS-GBD.

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis

There is no consensus on the optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) for patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent LC after PTGBD between 1 February 2016 and 1 February 2020. We divided patients into three groups according to the interval time between PTGBD and LC as follows: Group I (within 1 week), (Group II, 1 week to 1 month), and Group III (> 1 month) and analyzed patients' perioperative outcomes. We enrolled 100 patients in this study (Group I, n = 22; Group II, n = 30; Group III, n = 48). We found no significant difference between the groups regarding patients' baseline characteristics and no significant difference regarding operation time and estimated blood loss (p = 0.69, p = 0.26, respectively). The incidence of conversion to open cholecystectomy was similar in the three groups (p = 0.37), and we found no significant difference regarding postoperative complications (p = 0.987). Group I had shorter total hospital stays and medical costs (p = 0.005, p < 0.001, respectively) vs Group II and Group III. Early LC within 1 week after PTGBD is safe and effective, with comparable intraoperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and conversion rates to open cholecystectomy. Furthermore, early LC could decrease postoperative length of hospital stay and medical costs.

Comparison of Three Methods of Gallbladder Drainage for Patients with Acute Cholecystitis Who Are at High Surgical Risk: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background: Percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PTGBD), endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUSGBD), and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) are used for the treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who are at high surgical risk. However, it is unclear which procedure is associated with the best outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched records in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to March 1, 2020. Studies that compared at least two of PTGBD, ETGBD, and EUSGBD were included. Results: A total of 13 studies were included in the present analyses. PTGBD, EUSGBD, and ETGBD were associated with similar clinical success, adverse event, recurrent cholecystitis, reintervention, and mortality rates. PTGBD was associated with a higher technical success rate than EUSGBD (odds ratio [OR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.40-1.41) or ETGBD (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.35-1.53). EUSGBD was associated with the highest probability of clinical success (67.5%), and the lowest prevalences of adverse events (57.0%) and recurrent cholecystitis (60.9%). ETGBD was associated with the best reintervention outcomes (81.8%). Conclusions: Compared with PTGBD and ETGBD, EUSGBD appears to be preferable with respect to both safety and efficacy for the treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who are at high surgical risk.

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for the management of acute calculus cholecystitis patients unfit for urgent cholecystectomy

Objectives

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) has been proposed as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients with acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ETGBD via endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGBS) or endoscopic naso-gallbladder drainage (ENGBD) as either a bridging or a definitive treatment option for patients with ACC when a cholecystectomy is delayed or cannot be performed.

Methods

From July 2014 to December 2018, 171 patients with ACC in whom ETGBD were attempted were retrospectively reviewed. The technical and clinical success rates and adverse events were evaluated. Moreover, the predictive factors for technical success and the stent patency in the ETGBS group with high surgical risk were examined.

Results

The technical and clinical success rates by intention-to-treat analysis for ETGBD were 90.6% (155/171) and 90.1% (154/171), respectively. Visible cystic duct on cholangiography were significant technical success predictor (adjusted odds ratio: 7.099, 95% confidence interval: 1.983–25.407, P = 0.003) as per logistic regression analysis. Adverse events occurred in 12.2% of patients (21/171: mild pancreatitis, n = 9; acute cholangitis, n = 6; post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding, n = 4; and stent migration, n = 1; ACC recurrence, n = 1), but all patients were treated with conservative management and endoscopic treatment. Among the ETGBS group, the median stent patency in 70 patients with high surgical risk was 503 days (interquartile range: 404.25–775 days).

Conclusions

ETGBD, using either ETGBS or ENGBD, may be a suitable bridging option for ACC patients unfit for urgent cholecystectomy. In high surgical risk patients, ETGBS may be a promising and useful treatment modality with low ACC recurrence.

Single-operator peroral cholangioscopy cystic duct cannulation for transpapillary gallbladder stent placement in patients with acute cholecystitis at moderate to high surgical risk (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

One of the main reasons for failed endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGS) under fluoroscopic guidance is the inability to cannulate the cystic duct. Single-operator peroral cholangioscopy (SOC)-assisted ETGS is an adjunct technique to facilitate ETGS. We aimed to demonstrate its efficacy.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2019, 104 patients with acute cholecystitis at moderate to high surgical risk underwent ETGS, which involved 3 steps: (1) cystic duct cannulation under fluoroscopic guidance with or without additional SOC guidance; (2) guidewire placement; and (3) stent placement in the gallbladder. The technical success rate was determined when stent placement was confirmed endoscopically and radiographically.

RESULTS

Of 104 patients, 55 (53%) patients had successful ETGS under fluoroscopic guidance. Of 49 patients who had failed fluoroscopy-guided ETGS, 41 patients underwent additional SOC-assisted ETGS and 5 patients proceeded to other interventions. Of patients who underwent SOC-assisted ETGS (n = 41), 23 (56%) cystic cannulation followed by stent placement were successful; cystic duct cannulations, guidewire, and stent placement failed in 8, 9, and 1 patients, respectively. The overall technical success rate of ETGS increased from 53% (55 of 104) to 75% (78 of 104) after additional SOC assistance. Adverse events and recurrence were not different between patients who underwent ETGS under fluoroscopic guidance and those who underwent SOC-assisted ETGS.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute cholecystitis who are not surgical candidates, SOC-assisted ETGS can increase the technical success rate after failed fluoroscopic guidance. SOC can help for the cystic duct cannulation and guidewire placement steps but not for the stent placement step.

EUS guided gallbladder drainage

Cholecystectomy is the gold standard treatment for acute cholecystitis, but it may not be appropriate for patients with significant comorbidities. Percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) are alternatives with good technical and clinical success rates, but are limited by technical challenges and the need for definitive therapy. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is quickly becoming the preferred modality of treatment at expert centers in this cohort of patients due to increased efficacy and minimal adverse events. Technicalities of the procedure, including selection of access site, should be informed by the ultimate needs and anatomy of each patient. With the evolution of new stents and accessories, including a cautery-enhanced lumen apposing metal stent deployment system, success rates and adverse events are favorable. A review of published case series demonstrates an overall clinical success rate of approximately 97% for EUS-GBD. The most common complication is pneumoperitoneum, so the evolution of self-expanding LAMS is promising. EUS-GBD has been successfully described in cases where definitive therapy or a bridge to cholecystectomy is needed. As the procedure's applications continue to evolve, there should be greater discussion about specific details including access site and stent selection.

EUS-guided versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Current Status in the Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Therapy: Is Endoscopic Drainage Feasible?- A Systematic Review

The bleeding complication risk of surgery or percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) may increase in patients with acute cholecystitis receiving antithrombotic therapy (ATT). Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) may be recommended for such patients. English articles published between 1991 and 2018 in peer-reviewed journals that discuss cholecystectomy, PTGBD, and EGBD in patients with ATT or coagulopathy were reviewed to assess the safety of the procedures, especially in terms of the bleeding complication. There were 8 studies on cholecystectomy, 3 on PTGBD, and 1 on endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) in patients receiving ATT. With respect to EGBD, 28 studies on ETGBD (including 1 study already mentioned above) and 26 studies on endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) were also analyzed. The overall bleeding complication rate in patients with ATT who underwent cholecystectomy was significantly higher than that in patients without ATT (6.5% [23/354] vs. 1.2% [26/2,224], p<0.001). However, the bleeding risk of cholecystectomy and PTGBD in patients receiving ATT was controversial. The overall technical success, clinical success, and bleeding complication rates of ETGBD vs. EUS-GBD were 84% vs. 96% (p<0.001), 92% vs. 97% (p<0.001), and 0.65% vs. 2.1% (p=0.005), respectively. One patient treated with ETGBD experienced bleeding complication among 191 patients with bleeding tendency. ETGBD may be an ideal drainage procedure for patients receiving ATT from the viewpoint of bleeding, although EUS-GBD is also efficacious.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage

"Gallbladder disease is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases encountered in clinical practice. Surgical removal and percutaneous drainage are both widely available and effective in the management of acute cholecystitis. Several endoscopic approaches exist as an alternative to these interventions. These include transpapillary approaches via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), transmural drainage and access approaches via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and endoscopic surgical approaches using natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) techniques. This article reviews the epidemiology and pathophysiology of gallbladder diseases and discusses the various percutaneous, surgical, and endoscopic approaches to managing gallbladder disease."