EUS-guided versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background In patients with acute cholecystitis who are deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for gallbladder drainage (GBD). There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic GBD [Endoscopic transpapillary GBD (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD. Methods We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in the management of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated. Results Five studies with a total of 857 patients (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD: 259 vs 598 patients) were included in the analysis. EUS-GBD was associated with higher technical [pooled OR 5.22 (95% CI 2.03-13.44; p = 0.0006; I-2 = 20%)] and clinical success [pooled OR 4.16 (95% CI 2.00-8.66; p = 0.0001; I-2 = 19%)] compared to ET-GBD. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events [pooled OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.77-2.22; p = 0.33, I-2 = 0%)]. EUS-GBD was associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis [pooled OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.14-0.79; p = 0.01; I-2 = 0%)]. There was low heterogeneity in the analyses. Conclusion EUS-GBD has higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rates of overall adverse events are statistically similar, EUS-GBD has lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. Hence, EUS-GBD is preferable to ET-GBD for endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis in select high-risk surgical patients.