Comparison of EUS-guided endoscopic transpapillary and percutaneous gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal method of gallbladder drainage (GBD) for acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the 3 methods of GBD (percutaneous [PT], endoscopic transpapillary [ETP], and EUS-guided).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search for all comparative studies assessing the efficacy of either 2 or all modalities used for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients at high risk for cholecystectomy was performed. Primary outcomes of technical and clinical success and postprocedure adverse events were assessed. Secondary outcomes were reintervention, unplanned readmissions, recurrent cholecystitis, and mortality.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified, comprising 1267 patients (472 EUS-GBD, 493 PT-GBD, and 302 ETP-GBD). In the network ranking estimate, PT-GBD and EUS-GBD had the highest likelihood of technical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.00 vs 1.02 vs 2.98) and clinical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.48 vs 1.55 vs 2.98). EUS-GBD had the lowest risk of recurrent cholecystitis (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.089 vs 2.02 vs 2.891). PT-GBD had the highest risk of reintervention (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.81 vs 2.99 vs 1.199) and unplanned readmissions (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.582 vs 2.944 vs 1.474), whereas ETP-GBD was associated with the lowest rates of mortality (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.62 vs 2.09 vs 1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 modalities of GBD have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Selection of technique will depend on available expertise. In centers with expertise in endoscopic GBD, the techniques are preferred over PT-GBD with improved outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: CRD42020181972.).