Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage Research Articles

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis: A Comprehensive Narrative Review for a Practical Approach.

Acute cholecystitis (AC), generally associated with the presence of gallstones, is a relatively frequent disease that can lead to serious complications. For these reasons, AC warrants prompt clinical diagnosis and management. There is general agreement in terms of considering early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) to be the best treatment for AC. The optimal timeframe to perform ELC is within 72 h from diagnosis, with a possible extension of up to 7-10 days from symptom onset. In the first hours or days after hospital admission, before an ELC procedure, the patient's medical management comprises fasting, intravenous fluid infusion, antimicrobial therapy, and possible administration of analgesics. Additionally, concomitant conditions such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, biliary pancreatitis, or systemic complications must be recognized and adequately treated. The importance of ELC is related to the frequent recurrence of symptoms and complications of gallstone disease in the interval period between the onset of AC and surgical intervention. In patients who are not eligible for ELC, it is suggested to delay surgery at least 6 weeks after the clinical presentation. Critically ill patients, who are unfit for surgery, may require rescue treatments, such as percutaneous or endoscopic gallbladder drainage (GBD). A particular treatment approach should be applied to special populations such as pregnant women, cirrhotic, and elderly patients. In this review, we provide a practical diagnostic and therapeutic approach to AC, even in specific clinical situations, based on evidence from the literature.

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage: A Comprehensive Review on Indications, Techniques, and Future Perspectives.

In recent years, therapeutic endoscopy has become a fundamental tool in the management of gallbladder diseases in light of its minimal invasiveness, high clinical efficacy, and good safety profile. Both endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (TGBD) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) provide effective internal drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis unfit for cholecystectomy, avoiding the drawbacks of external percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). The availability of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for EUS-guided transluminal interventions contributed to the expansion of endoscopic therapies for acute cholecystitis, making endoscopic gallbladder drainage easier, faster, and hence more widely available. Moreover, EUS-GBD with LAMS opened the possibility of several cholecystoscopy-guided interventions, such as gallstone lithotripsy and clearance. Finally, EUS-GBD has also been proposed as a rescue drainage modality in malignant biliary obstruction after failure of standard techniques, with encouraging results. In this review, we will describe the TBGD and EUS-GBD techniques, and we will discuss the available data on clinical efficacy in different settings in comparison with PGBD. Finally, we will comment on the future perspectives of EUS-GBD, discussing the areas of uncertainty in which new data are more strongly awaited.

Intrathoracic cholecystitis managed with endoscopic gallbladder drainage

Intrathoracic cholecystitis managed with endoscopic gallbladder drainage

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.

S22 Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage via Trans-Papillary Gallbladder Stent Placement Is Safe, Feasible and Effective in a Non-Tertiary Care Center: Outcomes From an Academic Community Hospital Setting

S22 Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage via Trans-Papillary Gallbladder Stent Placement Is Safe, Feasible and Effective in a Non-Tertiary Care Center: Outcomes From an Academic Community Hospital Setting

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage Conversion versus Conservative Treatment Following Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage in High-Risk Surgical Patients.

There are no consensus guidelines for patients with acute cholecystitis undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are unfit for interval cholecystectomy. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of endoscopic gallbladder drainage, i.e. conversion from percutaneous cholecystostomy (including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage), and conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. This retrospective review included patients who underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis between January 2017 and December 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage or percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal without interval cholecystectomy were included. Outcome measures included recurrent acute cholecystitis and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases. During the study period, 238 patients were selected (63 underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion and 175 underwent conservative treatment). Patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion had lower rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis (3 [4.76%] vs 31 [17.71%], p=0.012) and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases (6 [9.52%] vs 40 [22.86%], p=0.022) than those who underwent conservative treatment following percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. In the univariate and multivariate analyses, calculus cholecystitis (odds ratio, 13.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.83 to 102.83; p=0.011) and conversion of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.78; p=0.019) were significant predictive factors for recurrent acute cholecystitis. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion led to more favorable outcomes than conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. Therefore, endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion may be considered a promising treatment option for patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are at a high surgical risk.

EUS-Guided gallbladder drainage vs percutaneous transhepatic drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Occasionally, cholecystectomy is not possible because the patient is not suitable for surgery, and non-operative management should be performed. In these patients, the non-operative management can be through the percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) or the endoscopic gallbladder drainage. We decided to compare the efficacy and safety of PTGBD and EUS-GBD in the non-operative management of patients with acute cholecystitis. We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, OVID, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. This meta-analysis considers studies published until September 2021. Six studies were selected (2 RCTs). These studies included 749 patients. The mean age was 72.81 ±7.41 years, and males represented 57.4%. EUS-GBD technical success was lower than PTGBD (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), whereas clinical success and adverse events rates were similar in both groups. Twenty-one deaths were reported in all six studies. The global mortality rate was 2.80%, without differences in both groups (2.84% and 2.77% in the EUS-GBD group and the PTGBD groups, respectively). EUS-GBD and PTGBD were successful techniques for gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis who are non-tributary for surgery. EUS-GBD has a similar clinical success rate and a similar adverse events rate in comparison to PTGBD. The high technical success and the low adverse events rate of the EUS approach to gallbladder make this technique an excellent alternative for patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot be undergoing surgery.

Practice Patterns of Endoscopists Performing Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage

Background and AimsThe standard of care for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis is cholecystectomy. However, many patients are unfit for surgery due to substantial medical comorbidities, or surgery is technically challenging due to anatomic considerations. Options for patients who are not surgical candidates include percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement by interventional radiology, endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD), or conservative management. Over the last decade, techniques of EGBD have been employed for temporary or definitive gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis who are not surgical candidates. Despite growing interest and clinical use of EGBD, little is known about practice patterns of EGBD. Our aim was to survey endoscopists to evaluate the practice patterns and technical considerations regarding EGBD. MethodsAn 18-item survey was distributed to all members of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Each response was included in the final analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated using frequencies and percentages. ResultsResponses were received from 217 endoscopists. Of these, 178 perform endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder draining and 178 perform endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage. The preferred approach for EGBD was endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage in 58.8%, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided transpapillary gallbladder stent placement in 30.2%, and no preference in 11%. ConclusionDespite growing interest in EGBD, significant heterogeneity in practice patterns exists. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and provide data for future guidelines.

ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS IN HIGH-RISK PATIENTS. SURGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, OR ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT? BRAZILIAN COLLEGE OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY POSITION PAPER.

Acute cholecystitis (AC) is an acute inflammatory process of the gallbladder that may be associated with potentially severe complications, such as empyema, gangrene, perforation of the gallbladder, and sepsis. The gold standard treatment for AC is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, for a small group of AC patients, the risk of laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be very high, mainly in the elderly with associated severe diseases. In these critically ill patients, percutaneous cholecystostomy or endoscopic ultrasound gallbladder drainage may be a temporary therapeutic option, a bridge to cholecystectomy. The objective of this Brazilian College of Digestive Surgery Position Paper is to present new advances in AC treatment in high-risk surgical patients to help surgeons, endoscopists, and physicians select the best treatment for their patients. The effectiveness, safety, advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of each procedure are discussed. The main conclusions are: a) AC patients with elevated surgical risk must be preferably treated in tertiary hospitals where surgical, radiological, and endoscopic expertise and resources are available; b) The optimal treatment modality for high-surgical-risk patients should be individualized based on clinical conditions and available expertise; c) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains an excellent option of treatment, mainly in hospitals in which percutaneous or endoscopic gallbladder drainage is not available; d) Percutaneous cholecystostomy and endoscopic gallbladder drainage should be performed only in well-equipped hospitals with experienced interventional radiologist and/or endoscopist; e) Cholecystostomy catheter should be removed after resolution of AC. However, in patients who have no clinical condition to undergo cholecystectomy, the catheter may be maintained for a prolonged period or even definitively; f) If the cholecystostomy catheter is maintained for a long period of time several complications may occur, such as bleeding, bile leakage, obstruction, pain at the insertion site, accidental removal of the catheter, and recurrent AC; g) The ideal waiting time between cholecystostomy and cholecystectomy has not yet been established and ranges from immediately after clinical improvement to months. h) Long waiting periods between cholecystostomy and cholecystectomy may be associated with new episodes of acute cholecystitis, multiple hospital readmissions, and increased costs. Finally, when selecting the best treatment option other aspects should also be considered, such as costs, procedures available at the medical center, and the patient's desire. The patient and his family should be fully informed about all treatment options, so they can help making the final decision.

S1105 Practice Patterns of Endoscopists Performing Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage

S1105 Practice Patterns of Endoscopists Performing Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage

Efficacy of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis

BackgroundEarly 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.MethodsOverall, 101 patients receiving laparoscopic cholecystectomy between September 2019 and September 2020 in our department were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

What makes acute cholecystitis recur after removing the percutaneous cholecystostomy tube?

Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) is an alternative treatment option for acute cholecystitis. However, the disease may recur after PTGBD catheter removal. This study aimed to evaluate the role of endoscopic sphincterotomy and other risk factors in reducing the recurrence of cholecystitis.We retrospectively analyzed data from 1088 patients who underwent PTGBD for cholecystitis at Kyungpook National University Hospital, Republic of Korea, between January 2011 and April 2018.A total of 115 patients were enrolled in the study. The recurrence rate of cholecystitis was 17.4% (n = 20) during a median follow-up period of 1159 (range, 369–2774) days. Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy did not significantly affect the recurrence rate of cholecystitis (P = .561). In multivariable analysis, cystic duct stones (P = .013) and PTGBD catheter migration before the prescheduled removal time (P = .002) were identified as independent risk factors for cholecystitis recurrence after PTGBD.To reduce post-PTGBD recurrence in cholecystitis, caution must be exercised to avoid inadvertent dislodging of the PTGBD catheter. In cases of cholecystitis with cystic duct stones, cholecystectomy should be considered only after careful assessment of postoperative risks. Instead, transluminal endoscopic gallbladder drainage could represent a promising option for the prevention of recurrent cholecystitis.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage for Cholecystitis in Poor Surgical Candidates: An Updated Comprehensive Review.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard and fundamental treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis; however, there are cases in which patients may be poor surgical candidates due to advanced age, comorbidities, and/or general condition. The rate of recurrent cholecystitis is high in patients who are not surgically treated; therefore, the prevention of recurrence in this patient population is an important subject of investigation in the management of cholecystitis. Although it has recently been reported that long-term stent placement by endoscopic gallbladder stenting or endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage may reduce the recurrence rate, its efficacy and safety remain controversial. Additionally, details surrounding the long-term stent management of these treatment methods should be further investigated. In this review, we summarize the updated evidence regarding the usefulness of long-term stent placement with endoscopic gallbladder stenting or endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage as a preventive measure for recurrence of cholecystitis and discuss issues that should be addressed in future studies.

S978 Single Center Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound Gallbladder Drainage in High-Risk Surgical Patients

S978 Single Center Outcome of Endoscopic Ultrasound Gallbladder Drainage in High-Risk Surgical Patients

Current status of endoscopic management of cholecystitis.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC) although it is always not suitable for patients who are poor candidates for surgery. Recently, endoscopic gallbladder (GB) drainage was found to be a potentially revolutionary alternative for cholecystectomy for the control of symptoms, definitive treatment, or bridging therapy until surgery is possible. Two endoscopic methods have been established using either the trans-mural or trans-papillary drainage approach. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided GB drainage (EUS-GBD; trans-mural approach) is a novel technique that allows stent placement between the GB and duodenum or stomach via fistula track, effectively enabling GB drainage. For endoscopic trans-papillary GB drainage (ETGBD; trans-papillary approach), attempts of selective cannulation to the cystic duct should be made to place the stent in the same manner as an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. In comparison, EUS-GBD has higher clinical success and lower recurrence rates than ETGBD due to the use of larger-caliber stents, which allow for effective drainage when performed by skilled practitioners at high-volume centers. Advantages of ETGBD over EUS-GBD include more affordable costs and physiologic drainage, which preserves naive anatomy for possible future cholecystectomy. Although the field of endoscopic treatment for AC is rapidly advancing, important questions regarding which method improves clinical outcomes and safety more effectively remain unaddressed. Herein, the current status of endoscopic treatment for AC, including a technical review on clinical outcomes, adverse events, and advantages and disadvantages of each technique are reviewed, as well as other future prospects.

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

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. 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. 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]. 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.

How to treat remnant cholecystitis after subtotal cholecystectomy: two case reports

BackgroundSubtotal cholecystectomy in patients with severe acute cholecystitis is considered a “bailout” option when the safety of the bile duct cannot be guaranteed. However, subtotal cholecystectomy has a long-term risk of remnant cholecystitis. The appropriate management of remnant cholecystitis has not been fully elucidated.Case presentationCase 1 was a 66-year-old man who had undergone subtotal cholecystectomy 14 years prior to the development of remnant cholecystitis. We first performed endoscopic gallbladder drainage to minimize inflammation, and then proceeded with elective surgery. We performed a reconstituting procedure for the residual gallbladder due to significant adhesions between the cystic and common bile ducts. Case 2 was a 56-year-old man who had undergone subtotal cholecystectomy for abscess-forming perforated cholecystitis 2 years prior to the development of remnant cholecystitis. He underwent endoscopic drainage followed by complete remnant cholecystectomy 4 months later.ConclusionEndoscopic gallbladder drainage is a useful strategy to improve inflammation and reduce the risk of bile duct injury during remnant cholecystectomy.

Endoscopic gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis with high-risk surgical patients between transduodenal and transpapillary stenting.

Background and Objectives:EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) has emerged as an alternative GBD technique, particularly for high-risk surgical patients. To prevent stent migration or to facilitate stent deployment, the lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) was recently developed for EUS-GBD. However, LAMS remains unavailable in several countries and is expensive compared with conventional fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS). Although several studies have shown the clinical benefits of EUS-GBD using novel FCSEMS or LAMS compared with endoscopic transpapillary GBD (ETGBD), the choice between ETGBD and EUS-GBD using conventional FCSEMS and ETGBD remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate EUS-GBD using conventional FCSEMS compared with ETGBD.Materials and Methods:This comparative retrospective study included consecutive symptomatic AC patients who underwent gallbladder drainage by either EUS-GBD or ETGBD between January 2015 and December 2018. The main outcome measures were technical success, clinical success, procedure-related and stent-related adverse events, and recurrence of AC during follow-up.Results:Fifty-four patients (44.4% female, 55.6% male) who underwent EUS-GBD (n = 25) or ETGBD (n = 29) were enrolled. Initial technical success rates were 100% with EUS-GBD and 82.7% (24/29) with ETGBD. The median procedure time was significantly shorter for the EUS-GBD group than for the ETGBD group (11.0 vs. 24.0 min, P < 0.05). Procedure-related adverse events did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.283). During follow-up (median 522 days, range 43 – 1892 days), recurrent acute cholecystitis (AC) was only observed in 4 patients from the ETGBD group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the EUS-GBD group (mean 1070 days) and ETGBD group (mean 1470 days) (P = 0.292).Conclusion:The technical success rate for EUS-GBD using FCSEMS with plastic stent insertion was significantly higher with a shorter procedure time and resulted in a lower rate of recurrent AC.

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

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). 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. 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). 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.).

Su1272 ENDOSCOPIC GALLBLADDER DRAINAGE FOR SYMPTOMATIC GALLBLADDER DISEASE: A CUMULATIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

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. Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models. 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 lumen apposing stent (LAMS), all transmural stents (LAMS, plastic, covered self-expanding metal stent [SEMS]) versus transpapillary drainage, and comparison to percutaneous transhepatic drainage. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing. Thirty-six studies (n=1538) with 4 randomized controlled trials, 8 prospective studies, and 24 retrospective studies were included in this analysis. Mean age of all patients who underwent endoscopic GB drainage was 68.45 ±7.58 years with average follow-up of 11.10 ±7.68 months. Overall, endoscopic GB drainage achieved a technical and clinical success of 87.33% and 84.16%, with an adverse event rate of 11.00% - Table 1. On subgroup analyses, EUS-guided LAMS studies demonstrated a technical success of 94.65% [(95% CI, 91.54-96.67); I2=0.00], clinical success of 92.06% [(95% CI, 88.65-94.51); I2=0.00], and adverse event rate of 11.71% [(95% CI, 8.92-15.23); I2=0.00]. 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 rate of recurrence [OR 0.17 (95% CI, 0.06-0.52); P=0.002] – Table 2 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]. Transpapillary drainage was associated with lower technical and clinical success as well as a higher rate of recurrence and reintervention (P<0.05) compared to percutaneous drainage. Endoscopic GB drainage is a safe and an 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.Table 2Comparative Data to Assess EUS-Guided Transmural versus ERC-Assisted Transpapillary versus Percutaneous Gallbladder DrainageView Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)