TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis
T2 - Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage?
AU - Khan, Muhammad Ali
AU - Atiq, Omair
AU - Kubiliun, Nisa
AU - Ali, Bilal
AU - Kamal, Faisal
AU - Nollan, Richard
AU - Ismail, Mohammad Kashif
AU - Tombazzi, Claudio
AU - Kahaleh, Michel
AU - Baron, Todd H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2017/1/1
Y1 - 2017/1/1
N2 - Background and Aims The efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary stenting or EUS-based transmural stenting are unknown. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these procedures and to compare them with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). Methods We searched several databases from inception through December 10, 2015 to identify studies (with 10 or more patients) reporting technical success and postprocedure adverse events of EGBD. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for technical and clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were calculated for both methods of EGBD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated to compare the technical success and postprocedure adverse events in patients undergoing EGBD versus PGBD. Results The WPRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis for ERC-based transpapillary drainage were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%; I2 = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I2 = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I2 = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The WPRs for EUS-based drainage for technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I2 = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I2 = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I2 = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I2 = 0%), respectively. On proportionate difference, EUS-based drainage had better technical (10%) and clinical success (4%) in comparison with ERC-based drainage. The pooled OR for technical success of EGBD versus PGBD was. 51 (95% CI,. 09-2.88; I2 = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was. 33 (95% CI,. 14-.80; I2 = 16%) in favor of EGBD. Conclusions EGBD is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo surgery. EGBD shows a similar technical success as PGBD but appears to be safer than PGBD.
AB - Background and Aims The efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary stenting or EUS-based transmural stenting are unknown. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these procedures and to compare them with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). Methods We searched several databases from inception through December 10, 2015 to identify studies (with 10 or more patients) reporting technical success and postprocedure adverse events of EGBD. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for technical and clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were calculated for both methods of EGBD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated to compare the technical success and postprocedure adverse events in patients undergoing EGBD versus PGBD. Results The WPRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis for ERC-based transpapillary drainage were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%; I2 = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I2 = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I2 = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The WPRs for EUS-based drainage for technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I2 = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I2 = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I2 = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I2 = 0%), respectively. On proportionate difference, EUS-based drainage had better technical (10%) and clinical success (4%) in comparison with ERC-based drainage. The pooled OR for technical success of EGBD versus PGBD was. 51 (95% CI,. 09-2.88; I2 = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was. 33 (95% CI,. 14-.80; I2 = 16%) in favor of EGBD. Conclusions EGBD is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo surgery. EGBD shows a similar technical success as PGBD but appears to be safer than PGBD.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85002632703&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85002632703&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.032
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.032
M3 - Review article
C2 - 27343412
AN - SCOPUS:85002632703
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 85
SP - 76-87.e3
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 1
ER -