Department of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Gastroenterology. 2012 Apr;142(4):805-11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.051. Epub 2012 Jan 11.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) for patients with acute, high-risk, or advanced-stage cholecystitis who do not respond to initial medical treatment and cannot undergo emergency cholecystectomy. However, the technical feasibility, efficacy, and safety of EUS-GBD and PTGBD have not been compared.
Fifty-nine patients with acute cholecystitis, who did not respond to initial medical treatment and were unsuitable for an emergency cholecystectomy, were chosen randomly to undergo EUS-GBD (n = 30) or PTGBD (n = 29). The technical feasibility, efficacy, and safety of EUS-GBD and PTGBD were compared.
EUS-GBD and PTGBD showed similar technical (97% [29 of 30] vs 97% [28 of 29]; 95% 1-sided confidence interval lower limit, -7%; P = .001 for noninferiority margin of 15%) and clinical (100% [29 of 29] vs 96% [27 of 28]; 95% 1-sided confidence interval lower limit, -2%; P = .0001 for noninferiority margin of 15%) success rates, and similar rates of complications (7% [2 of 30] vs 3% [1 of 29]; P = .492 in the Fisher exact test) and conversions to open cholecystectomy (9% [2 of 23] vs 12% [3 of 26]; P = .999 in the Fisher exact test). The median post-procedure pain score was significantly lower after EUS-GBD than after PTGBD (1 vs 5; P < .001 in the Mann-Whitney U test).
EUS-GBD is comparable with PTGBD in terms of the technical feasibility and efficacy; there were no statistical differences in the safety. EUS-GBD is a good alternative for high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo an emergency cholecystectomy.
对于初始药物治疗无效且不能进行紧急胆囊切除术的急性、高危或晚期胆囊炎患者,内镜超声引导经壁胆囊引流术(EUS-GBD)是经皮经肝胆囊引流术(PTGBD)的替代方法。然而,EUS-GBD 和 PTGBD 的技术可行性、疗效和安全性尚未进行比较。
选择 59 例急性胆囊炎患者,这些患者经初始药物治疗无效且不适合进行紧急胆囊切除术,随机分为 EUS-GBD 组(n=30)或 PTGBD 组(n=29)。比较 EUS-GBD 和 PTGBD 的技术可行性、疗效和安全性。
EUS-GBD 和 PTGBD 的技术(97%[30 例中的 29 例]与 97%[29 例中的 28 例];95%单侧置信区间下限,-7%;非劣效性界值 15%的 P=0.001)和临床(100%[29 例中的 29 例]与 96%[28 例中的 27 例];非劣效性界值 15%的 95%单侧置信区间下限,-2%;P=0.0001)成功率相似,并发症发生率(7%[30 例中的 2 例]与 3%[29 例中的 1 例];Fisher 确切检验 P=0.492)和转为开腹胆囊切除术(9%[23 例中的 2 例]与 12%[26 例中的 3 例];Fisher 确切检验 P=0.999)的比例也相似。EUS-GBD 术后的中位术后疼痛评分明显低于 PTGBD(1 与 5;Mann-Whitney U 检验 P<0.001)。
EUS-GBD 在技术可行性和疗效方面与 PTGBD 相当,在安全性方面无统计学差异。EUS-GBD 是不能进行紧急胆囊切除术的高危急性胆囊炎患者的一种较好选择。