Abbonarsi

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (with videos) - 19/08/19

Doi : 10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.238 
Jennifer T. Higa, MD, Nadav Sahar, MD, Richard A. Kozarek, MD, Danielle La Selva, BA, Michael C. Larsen, MD, Seng-Ian Gan, MD, Andrew S. Ross, MD, Shayan S. Irani, MD
 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA 

Reprint requests: Shayan Irani, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Ave, Mailstop C3-GAS, Seattle, WA 98101.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyVirginia Mason Medical Center1100 Ninth AveMailstop C3-GASSeattleWA98101

Abstract

Background and Aims

There is an evolving role for EUS-guided transmural gallbladder (GB) drainage. Endoscopic transpapillary GB drainage is a well-established, nonoperative treatment for acute cholecystitis. We compared the outcomes of 78 cases of EUS-guided versus transpapillary GB drainage at a single, U.S.-based, high-volume endoscopy center.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis performed from May 2013 to January 2018, identified from a database of nonoperative patients with acute cholecystitis. Both electrocautery-enhanced and nonelectrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents were used. For transpapillary drainage, guidewire access was obtained and then a transpapillary 7F × 15-cm double-pigtail plastic stent was placed.

Results

In patients who had successful transpapillary or transmural drainage, demographics data were similar. Technical success was observed in 39 of 40 patients (97.5%) who underwent first attempt at EUS-guided drainage versus 32 of 38 patients (84.2%) for first-attempt transpapillary drainage (adjusted odds ratio, 9.83; 95% confidence interval, .93-103.86). Clinical success was significantly higher with EUS drainage in 38 of 40 patients (95.0%) versus transpapillary drainage in 29 of 38 patients (76.3%) (adjusted odds ratio, 7.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-38.52). Recurrent cholecystitis was lower in the EUS-guided drainage group (2.6% vs 18.8%, respectively; P = .023) on univariate analysis but only trended to significance in a multiple regression model. Duration of follow-up, reintervention rates, hospital length of stay, and overall adverse event rates were similar between groups.

Conclusions

EUS-guided GB drainage results in a higher clinical success rate compared with transpapillary drainage and may be associated with a lower recurrence rate of cholecystitis. However, transpapillary drainage should be considered as the first-line treatment for patients who are surgical candidates but require temporizing measures or require an ERCP for alternative reasons.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Abbreviations : AE, GB, LAMS


Mappa


 DISCLOSURE: The following authors disclosed financial relationships relevant to this publication: J. T. Higa, A. S. Ross: Consultant for Boston Scientific. R. A. Kozarek; research funding from Boston Scientific; royalties from textbooks from Elsevier and Springer. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
 If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr Irani at shayan.irani@virginiamason.org.


© 2019  American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 90 - N° 3

P. 483-492 - settembre 2019 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in the West: the absolute but not final word
  • Dennis Yang, Andrey I Kotzev, Peter V. Draganov
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Should EUS-guided gallbladder drainage be preferred over endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients?
  • Anthony Yuen-Bun Teoh

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.