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
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. |
Vol 90 - N° 3
P. 483-492 - settembre 2019 Ritorno al numeroBenvenuto 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 ?
