Endoscopy 2020; 52(02): 96-106
DOI: 10.1055/a-1020-3932
Systematic review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage, transpapillary drainage, or percutaneous drainage in high risk acute cholecystitis patients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

Babu P. Mohan
1  Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, United States
,
Shahab R. Khan
1  Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, United States
,
Sushruth Trakroo
2  Internal Medicine, St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
,
Suresh Ponnada
3  Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia, United States
,
Mahendran Jayaraj
4  Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
,
Ravishankar Asokkumar
5  Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
,
Douglas G. Adler
6  Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 08 April 2019

accepted after revision 03 September 2019

Publication Date:
23 October 2019 (online)

Abstract

Background Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUSGBD) are alternatives to percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PCGBD) for patients with acute cholecystitis who are unfit for surgery. Data comparing these modalities are limited and have reported conflicting results.

Methods We searched multiple databases from inception to May 2019 to identify studies that reported on ETGBD, EUSGBD, and PCGBD in the management of acute cholecystitis in patients with a high surgical risk. Aims were to compare the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and disease recurrence.

Results 1223 patients (22 studies), 557 patients (14 studies), and 13 351 patients (46 studies) were treated by ETGBD, EUSGBD, and PCGBD, respectively. The pooled technical and clinical successes were: ETGBD 83 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 80.1 – 85.5, I 2 = 29) and 88.1 % (95 %CI 83.6 – 91.4, I 2 = 50), respectively; EUSGBD 95.3 % (95 %CI 92.8 – 96.9, I 2 = 0) and 96.7 % (95 %CI 94.0 – 98.2, I 2 = 0), respectively; and PCGBD 98.7 % (95 %CI 98.0 – 99.1, I 2 = 0) and 89.3 % (95 %CI 86.6 – 91.5, I 2 = 84), respectively. Clinical success with EUSGBD was significantly superior to the other approaches. All complications were comparable between the groups. Pancreatitis occurred with ETGBD in 5.1 % (95 %CI 3.5 – 7.3), whereas bleeding and perforation occurred with EUSGBD in 4.3 % (95 %CI 2.7 – 6.8) and 3.7 % (95 %CI 2.3 – 6.0), respectively. Stent migration occurred with PCGBD in 7.4 % (95 %CI 5.5 – 10.0).

Conclusion EUSGBD demonstrated better clinical success than ETGBD and PCGBD in the management of acute cholecystitis patients at high surgical risk.

Supplementary material