Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis

A retrospective comparative study of percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage versus endoscopic gallbladder stenting on the clinical course of acute cholecystitis: A propensity score matching analysis using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan

BACKGROUND

We performed a retrospective comparative study to clarify the optimal gallbladder drainage method prior to elective cholecystectomy.

METHODS

We collected data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database about cholecystitis patients who underwent gallbladder drainage prior to cholecystectomy in a subsequent hospitalization between April 2014 and March 2020. We divided the study population into two groups: an endoscopic gallbladder stenting (EGBS) group and a percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) group. We performed propensity score matching and compared surgical outcomes related to cholecystectomy.

RESULTS

We collected 6306 cases (PTGBD: 6112 cases; EGBS: 194 cases). In propensity score matching, we obtained 193 matched pairs from the study population. Long-term postoperative antibiotics therapy (2 vs. 9; risk ratio 4.7 [95% CI: 1.1-30.9]) was more frequent in the EGBS group than the PTGBD group. There were no significant differences between the two groups for laparotomic cholecystectomy and postoperative bile duct drainage. For reoperation, postoperative abdominal drainage and postoperative blood transfusion, there were few outcome occurrences and effect measures were not obtained.

CONCLUSION

Gallbladder drainage by EGBS may have more risk of surgical complications related to elective cholecystectomy than PTGBD. There are a few reports on this topic, so further research should be conducted.

Outcomes of interval cholecystectomy after EUS-guided gallbladder drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cholecystectomy (CCY) is considered the criterion standard intervention for acute cholecystitis (AC). However, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) can be performed in patients unfit for surgery. Interval CCY after EUS-GBD is typically not performed because the formation of a cholecystoenteric fistula increases the technical complexity of CCY. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the outcomes of interval CCY after EUS-GBD.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of multiple electronic databases for studies reporting on outcomes of interval CCY after EUS-GBD. Primary outcomes were pooled proportions of technical success of interval CCY and surgical techniques (rate of open, laparoscopic, and conversion from laparoscopic to open). The secondary outcome was adverse events (AEs). A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using the random-effects model. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 1001 citations, 15 studies with 707 patients were included. The pooled proportion of successful interval CCY was 32.9% (95% CI, 11.8-53.9%; I2 = 99%). Surgical techniques included laparoscopic CCY in 76.2% (95% CI, 61.5-91.0%; I2 = 82%), open CCY in 14.5% (95% CI, 4.2-24.8%; I2 = 82%), and conversion from laparoscopic to open CCY in 14% (95% CI, 4.1-23.8%; I2 = 77%). The pooled proportion of overall AEs was 13.2% (95% CI, 4.3-22.1%; I2 = 61%), including postoperative infection in 7.6% (95% CI, 0.7-14.6%; I2 = 65%). There was no procedure-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that interval CCY is technically feasible and safe after EUS-GBD. Endoscopists should still consider the local surgical expertise and recommendations before performing EUS-GBD in patients who could eventually become surgical candidates afterward.

Percutaneous and endoscopic transpapillary cholecystoduodenal stenting in acute cholecystitis-A viable long-term option in high-risk patients?

BACKGROUND

The prolonged use of percutaneous cholecystostomy tubes (PCTs) in patients with acute cholecystitis, deemed inoperable, is fraught with complications. Transpapillary cholecystoduodenal stenting (TCDS) is an alternative technique that restores the physiologic outflow of bile, avoiding the need for an external drain. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of this approach remain unclear. We sought to prospectively assess the safety and efficacy of this procedure, performed via percutaneous or endoscopic approach, in high-risk patients presenting with acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

This prospective study included consecutive patients with acute cholecystitis and long-lasting, prohibitive surgical risk, in whom TCDS was offered at two partnering tertiary care centers between August 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Patients with a need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) underwent ERCP-guided TCDS. In patients without a need for ERCP, a temporary PCT was followed by fluoroscopic-guided TCDS 4 weeks to 6 weeks later. Interval cholecystectomy was performed in patients who became surgical candidates later. All patients were followed up until January 1, 2023.

RESULTS

Transpapillary cholecystoduodenal stenting was successful in 67 (percutaneous in 45/50; endoscopic in 22/23) of 73 patients (92%) attempted. Over a median follow-up period of 17 months (7, 26), 10 patients (15%) developed stent blockage or migration; all but two had their stent successfully replaced. Five patients (7%) developed mild, self-limited pancreatitis. Five (7%) patients underwent interval cholecystectomy at a median time of 7 months.

CONCLUSION

Transpapillary cholecystoduodenal stenting is a safe and promising definitive alternative to chronic PCT in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis that eliminates the discomfort and complications of long-term external drainage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

A Review on Endoscopic Management of Acute Cholecystitis: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage and Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage

A percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PCT) is the conventionally favored nonoperative intervention for treating acute cholecystitis. However, PCT is beset by high adverse event rates, need for scheduled reintervention, and inadvertent dislodgement, as well as patient dissatisfaction with a percutaneous drain. Recent advances in endoscopic therapy involve the implementation of endoscopic transpapillary drainage (ETP-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), which are increasingly preferred over PCT due to their favorable technical and clinical success combined with lower complication rates. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the literature on EUS-GBD and ETP-GBD, delineating instances when clinicians should opt for endoscopic management and highlighting potential risks associated with each approach.

Assessment of Gallbladder Drainage Methods in the Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis: A Literature Review

Gallbladder drainage is a treatment option in high-risk surgical patients with moderate or severe acute cholecystitis. It may be applied as a bridge to cholecystectomy or a definitive treatment option. Apart from the simple and widely accessible percutaneous cholecystostomy, new attractive techniques have emerged in the previous decade, including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage. The aim of this paper is to present currently available drainage techniques in the treatment of AC; evaluate their technical and clinical effectiveness, advantages, possible adverse events, and patient outcomes; and illuminate the decision-making path when choosing among various treatment modalities for each patient, depending on their clinical characteristics and the accessibility of methods.

An Analysis of Outcomes and Management Strategies for Patients With Cholecystostomy Tubes

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PCT) drainage is an effective management strategy for acute cholecystitis in patients medically unfit for surgery. However, little is known about the fate of patients managed by PCT. We conducted this study to determine tube management outcomes for patients with acute cholecystitis managed by PCT.

METHODS

The electronic record was queried to identify patients with acute cholecystitis managed by PCT from 2012-2020. Patients were divided into three groups for analysis: 1) ultimately managed by cholecystectomy, 2) eventual confirmation of distal flow of bile from the gallbladder and tube removal, and 3) tubes left in place without further management.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients with acute cholecystitis treated by PCT were included. Sixty-six patients never fully recovered from the medical insult associated with their diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and had their tubes left in situ. Sixty-four of these 66 patients (97%) died during follow-up. The remaining 113 patients recovered from their illness and presented to clinic for evaluation for tube removal and/or cholecystectomy. When distal biliary flow was confirmed, tube removal was favored (n = 70). When cystic duct outflow occlusion persisted, cholecystectomy was planned for patients who became acceptable surgical candidates (n = 43). For patients managed by cholecystectomy, 8 were approached open and 35 laparoscopically, with 12 of 35 (34.3%) converted to open and 23 (65.7%) completed laparoscopically.

CONCLUSION

Our study favors PCT removal for patients who recover from their acute illness when distal bile flow from the gallbladder is confirmed. We reserve cholecystectomy for patients who recover from their illness and demonstrate persistent cystic duct outflow obstruction.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage

The mainstay of management of acute cholecystitis is surgical. Despite the advances in anesthesia and laparoscopic surgery, there is a significant pool of patients that are not candidates for surgery given their significant comorbidities and limited functional reserve. Historically percutaneous gallbladder drainage has been utilized to temporize these patients. Recently, endoscopic approaches are being explored with transpapillary and transmural drainage. In this article, we discuss the background, current status, technical challenges, adverse events, and outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis.

Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis using Two Gallbladder Stents (Dual Gallbladder Stenting)

Background/Aims

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETPGBD) is gaining popularity for the management of acute cholecystitis (AC) in high-risk patients. However, the stents placed during the procedure are not immune to obstruction. Here we describe a novel technique of stenting with two transpapillary stents and evaluate its technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy in AC.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing ETPGBD using dual stents for AC at our institution between November 1, 2017 and August 31, 2020 was conducted. We abstracted patient data to evaluate technical and clinical success, adverse events, and long-term outcomes. Two stents were placed either during the index procedure or during an interval procedure performed 4–6 weeks after the index procedure.

Results

A total of 21 patients underwent ETPGBD with dual stenting (57.14% male, mean age: 62.14±17.21 years). The median interval between the placement of the first and the second stents was 37 days (range: 0–226 days). Technical and clinical success rates were 100%, with a recurrence rate of 4.76% (n=1) and adverse event rate of 9.52% (n=2) during a mean follow-up period of 471.74±345.64 days (median: 341 days, range: 55–1084 days).

Conclusions

ETPGBD with dual gallbladder stenting is a safe and effective technique for long-term gallbladder drainage in non-surgical candidates. Larger controlled studies are needed to validate our findings for the widespread implementation of this technique.

Clinical Evaluation of a Newly Developed Guidewire for Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy

Background: The guidewire (GW) plays an important role in pancreatobiliary endoscopy. GW quality is a critical factor in the effectiveness and efficiency of pancreatobiliary endoscopy. In this study, we evaluate a new 0.025 inch multipurpose endoscopic GW: the M-Through. Methods: Our study was a multicenter retrospective analysis. We enrolled patients who underwent endoscopic procedures using the M-Through between May 2018 and April 2020. Patients receiving the following endoscopic treatments were enrolled: common bile duct (CBD) stone extraction, endoscopic drainage for distal and hilar malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), and endoscopic drainage for acute cholecystitis. For each procedure, we examined the rate of success without GW exchange. Results: A total of 170 patients (80 with CBD stones, 60 with MBO, and 30 with cholecystitis) were enrolled. The rate of completion without GW exchange was 100% for CBD stone extraction, 83.3% for endoscopic drainage for MBO, and 43.3% for endoscopic drainage for cholecystitis. In unsuccessful cholecystitis cases with the original GW manipulator, 1 of 8 cases succeeded in the manipulator exchange. Including 6 cases who changed GW after the manipulator exchange, 11 of 16 cases succeeded in changing GW. There was significant difference in the success rate between the manipulator exchange and GW exchange (p = 0.03). The insertion of devices and stent placement after biliary cannulation (regardless of type) were almost completed with M-through. We observed no intraoperative GW-related adverse events such as perforation and bleeding due to manipulation. Conclusion: The 0.025 inch M-Through can be used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related procedures efficiently and safely. Our study found high rates of success without GW exchange in all procedures except for endoscopic drainage for cholecystitis. This GW is considered (1) excellent for supportability of device insertion to remove CBD stones; (2) good for seeking the biliary malignant stricture but sometimes need the help of a hydrophilic GW; (3) suboptimal for gallbladder drainage that require a high level of seeking ability.