EUS-guided gallbladder drainage vs dual stent transpapillary gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis.

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-01-29 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2509-7076
Dhruval Amin, Katherine M Cooper, Prashanth Rau, Lea Sayegh, Nouran Mostafa, Ikechukwu Achebe, Zachary DeVore, Daniella Gonzalez, Stephanie Stephanie, Jaroslav Zivny, Savant Mehta, Christopher Marshall, Navine Nasser-Ghodsi, Andrew C Storm, Neil B Marya
{"title":"EUS-guided gallbladder drainage vs dual stent transpapillary gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis.","authors":"Dhruval Amin, Katherine M Cooper, Prashanth Rau, Lea Sayegh, Nouran Mostafa, Ikechukwu Achebe, Zachary DeVore, Daniella Gonzalez, Stephanie Stephanie, Jaroslav Zivny, Savant Mehta, Christopher Marshall, Navine Nasser-Ghodsi, Andrew C Storm, Neil B Marya","doi":"10.1055/a-2509-7076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Cholecystectomy (CCY) is the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis. For non-surgical patients, percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PT-GBD) is recommended but is associated with high readmission rates and poor quality of life. Endoscopic gallbladder decompression techniques, including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), are alternatives. Studies comparing ET-GBD and EUS-GBD have shown EUS-GBD to have superior outcomes. However, these studies assessed ET-GBD mostly via single transcystic stent placement (SSET-GBD). This study aimed to compare outcomes of dual transcystic stents (DSET-GBD) and EUS-GBD in non-surgical candidates with acute cholecystitis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A multicenter analysis was conducted on patients who underwent ET-GBD or EUS-GBD between January 2019 and January 2023. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and outcomes including technical success, success, adverse events (AEs), and recurrence rates of cholecystitis were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 129 procedures (56 EUS-GBD; 73 ET-GBD), technical success was achieved in 87.5% of EUS-GBD and 86.3% of ET-GBD attempts. Immediate clinical success was achieved in 98.1% for EUS-GBD and 100% for DSET-GBD. AE rates were similar between the groups. Recurrent cholecystitis rates were 5.3% for EUS-GBD and 8.2% for DSET-GBD ( <i>P</i> = 0.692).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that DSET-GBD has similarly low rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis compared with EUS-GBD. DSET-GBD should be considered as an alternative management strategy for management of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unable to undergo CCY.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a25097076"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11855224/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2509-7076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: Cholecystectomy (CCY) is the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis. For non-surgical patients, percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PT-GBD) is recommended but is associated with high readmission rates and poor quality of life. Endoscopic gallbladder decompression techniques, including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), are alternatives. Studies comparing ET-GBD and EUS-GBD have shown EUS-GBD to have superior outcomes. However, these studies assessed ET-GBD mostly via single transcystic stent placement (SSET-GBD). This study aimed to compare outcomes of dual transcystic stents (DSET-GBD) and EUS-GBD in non-surgical candidates with acute cholecystitis.

Patients and methods: A multicenter analysis was conducted on patients who underwent ET-GBD or EUS-GBD between January 2019 and January 2023. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and outcomes including technical success, success, adverse events (AEs), and recurrence rates of cholecystitis were measured.

Results: Of 129 procedures (56 EUS-GBD; 73 ET-GBD), technical success was achieved in 87.5% of EUS-GBD and 86.3% of ET-GBD attempts. Immediate clinical success was achieved in 98.1% for EUS-GBD and 100% for DSET-GBD. AE rates were similar between the groups. Recurrent cholecystitis rates were 5.3% for EUS-GBD and 8.2% for DSET-GBD ( P = 0.692).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that DSET-GBD has similarly low rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis compared with EUS-GBD. DSET-GBD should be considered as an alternative management strategy for management of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unable to undergo CCY.

eus引导下胆囊引流vs双支架经乳头胆管引流治疗急性胆囊炎。
背景与研究目的:胆囊切除术(CCY)是急性胆囊炎的标准治疗方法。对于非手术患者,建议经皮胆囊造瘘管(PT-GBD),但与高再入院率和低生活质量相关。内镜下胆囊减压技术,包括内镜下经乳头胆囊引流术(ET-GBD)和内镜下超声引导胆囊引流术(EUS-GBD),都是可选择的。比较ET-GBD和EUS-GBD的研究表明,EUS-GBD具有更好的预后。然而,这些研究大多通过单次经囊支架置入(SSET-GBD)评估ET-GBD。本研究旨在比较双经囊支架(DSET-GBD)和EUS-GBD治疗急性胆囊炎非手术患者的结果。患者和方法:对2019年1月至2023年1月期间接受ET-GBD或EUS-GBD的患者进行了多中心分析。从电子病历中提取数据,并测量技术成功、成功、不良事件(ae)和胆囊炎复发率等结果。结果:129例手术(56例EUS-GBD;73 ET-GBD), 87.5%的EUS-GBD和86.3%的ET-GBD尝试获得了技术成功。EUS-GBD的临床成功率为98.1%,DSET-GBD的临床成功率为100%。两组间AE发生率相似。EUS-GBD和DSET-GBD的胆囊炎复发率分别为5.3%和8.2% (P = 0.692)。结论:本研究表明,与EUS-GBD相比,DSET-GBD的急性胆囊炎复发率同样较低。对于不能接受CCY的急性胆囊炎患者,DSET-GBD应被视为一种替代的治疗策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信