4.7 Review

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

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 76-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.032

关键词

-

资金

  1. Boston Scientific
  2. Olympus
  3. Fujinon
  4. EMcison
  5. Xlumena, Inc
  6. W. L. Gore
  7. MaunaKea
  8. Apollo Endosurgery
  9. Cook Endoscopy
  10. ASPIRE Bariatrics
  11. GI Dynamics
  12. MI Tech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: 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). Methods: We 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. Results: The 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%; I-2 = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I-2 = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I-2 = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I-2 = 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%; I-2 = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I-2 = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I-2 = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I-2 = 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; I-2 = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was .33 (95% CI, .14-.80; I-2 = 16%) in favor of EGBD. Conclusions: EGBD 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据