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

Abstract

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.