Technical issues stemming from endoscopic-ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage: A single center experience

Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients: the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) guidelines

Dealing with acute cholecystitis in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients is frequent during daily practice and requires complex management. Several procedures exist to postpone and/or prevent surgical intervention in those patients who temporarily or definitively cannot undergo surgery. After a systematic review of the literature, an expert panel from the Italian Society of Emergency Surgery and Trauma (SICUT) discussed the different issues and statements in subsequent rounds. The final version of the statements was discussed during the annual meeting in Rome (September 2022). The present paper presents the definitive conclusions of the discussion. Fifteen statements based on the literature evidence were provided. The statements gave precise indications regarding the decisional process and the management of patients who cannot temporarily or definitively undergo cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Acute cholecystitis management in high-risk, critically ill, and unfit-for-surgery patients should be multidisciplinary. The different gallbladder drainage methods must be tailored according to each patient and based on the expertise of the hospital. Percutaneous gallbladder drainage is recommended as the first choice as a bridge to surgery or in severely physiologically deranged patients. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (cholecystoduodenostomy and cholecystogastrostomy) is suggested as a second-line alternative especially as a definitive procedure for those patients not amenable to surgical management. Trans-papillary gallbladder drainage is the last option to be reserved only to those unfit for other techniques. Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with percutaneous gallbladder drainage is suggested in all those patients recovering from the conditions that previously discouraged surgical intervention after at least 6 weeks from the gallbladder drainage.

Treatment Strategy for Acute Cholecystitis Induced by a Metallic Stent Placed in Malignant Biliary Strictures: Role of Percutaneous Transhepatic Gallbladder Aspiration

Objective The present study evaluated the strategic role of percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration (PTGBA) for acute cholecystitis (AC) induced by a metallic stent (MS) placed in a malignant biliary stricture in comparison with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD). Methods The treatment outcomes for 31 patients who underwent PTGBA as the initial intervention for MS-induced AC were evaluated and compared with those for 12 who underwent PTGBD. Results The technical success rate was 100% for both groups. PTGBA was ineffective for 11 patients, all of whom recovered with additional intervention, whereas PTGBD was effective for all patients except for 1 who died of sepsis (clinical success rate, 65% vs. 90%, p=0.16). Adverse events (AEs) were observed in only 1 case (3%) in the PTGBA group (mild bile peritonitis). Among the clinically effective cases, AC recurred in 20% of the PTGBA group and 33% of the PTGBD group (p=0.72). In the PTGBA group, the clinical success rate was significantly higher for patients without cancer invasion to a feeding artery of the gallbladder than in those with invasion (75% without invasion vs. 29% with invasion; p=0.036). According to the multivariate analysis, this factor was an independent factor for clinical success of PTGBA (odds ratio, 9.27; p=0.040). Conclusion Although the clinical success rate of PTGBA for MS-induced AC was lower than that of PTGBD, PTGBA remains a viable option because of its safety and procedural simplicity, especially for cases without tumor invasion to a feeding artery.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the management of acute cholecystitis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is increasingly utilised for patients with acute cholecystitis who are high-risk candidates for surgery. The technique to perform EUS-GBD has evolved and matured over the last two decades since EUS-GBD was first described in 2007 using a nasobiliary catheter. Compared to percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD), EUS-GBD offers benefits of shorter hospitalisation stay and lesser procedural pain and need for reintervention. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated review of the equipment and techniques available for EUS-GBD, outcomes of the procedure and how it compares against endoscopic transpapillary drainage (ET-GBD), PT-GBD and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Controversies surrounding the procedure will also be discussed.

Determinants of outcomes of transmural EUS-guided gallbladder drainage: systematic review with proportion meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transmural EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been increasingly used in the treatment of gallbladder diseases. Aims of the study were to provide a comprehensive meta-analysis and meta-regression of features and outcomes of this procedure.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of science, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature pertinent to transmural EUS-GBD up to May 2021. Random-effect meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression of potential modifiers of outcome measures considered were applied. Outcome measures were technical success rate, overall clinical success, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles were identified including 1004 patients enrolled between February 2009 and February 2020. Acute cholecystitis was present in 98.7% of cases. Pooled technical success was 98.0% (95% CI 96.3, 99.3; heterogeneity: 23.6%), the overall clinical success was 95.4% (95% CI 92.8, 97.5; heterogeneity: 35.3%), and procedure-related AEs occurred in 14.8% (95% CI 8.8, 21.8; heterogeneity: 82.4%), being stent malfunction/dislodgement the most frequent (3.5%). Procedural-related mortality was 1‰. Meta-regression showed that center experience proxied to > 10 cases/year increased the technical success rate (odds ratio [OR]: 2.84; 95% CI 1.06, 7.59) and the overall clinical success (OR: 3.52; 95% CI 1.33, 9.33). The use of anti-migrating devices also increased the overall clinical success (OR: 2.16; 95% CI 1.07, 4.36) while reducing procedure-related AEs (OR: 0.36; 95% CI 0.14, 0.98).

CONCLUSION

Physicians' experience and anti-migrating devices are the main determinants of main clinical outcomes after EUS-GBD, suggesting that treatment in expert centers would optimize results.