Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Muhammad Ali Khan ; MD¹ ; Omair Atiq ; MD² ; Nisa Kubiliun ; MD ; FASGE² ; Bilal Ali ; MD¹ ; Faisal Kamal ; MD¹ ; Richard Nollan ; PhD³ ; Mohammad Kashif Ismail ; MD ; AGAF¹ ; Claudio Tombazzi ; MD ; FASGE¹ ; Michel Kahaleh ; MD ; AGAF ; FASGE⁴ ; Todd H. Baron ; MD ; AGAF ; FASGE⁵ ;
• 关键词：CI ; confidence interval ; EGBD ; endoscopic gallbladder drainage ; ERC ; endoscopic retrograde cholangiography ; OR ; odds ratio ; PGBD ; percutaneous gallbladder drainage ; PRISMA ; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ; WPR ; weighted pooled rate
• 刊名：Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：85
• 期：1
• 页码：76-87.e3
• 全文大小：1558 K
• 卷排序：85

文摘

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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsEGBD 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.