Department of Gastroenterology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Division of Gastroenterology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct;94(4):671-684. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.05.031. Epub 2021 Jul 31.
Endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis has expanded in patients who are considered nonoperative candidates. Traditionally managed with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), improvement in techniques and devices has led to increased use of endoscopic methods for gallbladder drainage. This document reviews technical aspects of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD) as well as their respective technical/clinical success and adverse event rates. Available comparative data are also reviewed among nonsurgical gallbladder drainage techniques (PC, ET-GBD, and EUS-GBD).
The MEDLINE database was searched through March 2021 for relevant articles by using keywords including "acute cholecystitis," "interventional EUS," "percutaneous cholecystostomy," "transpapillary gallbladder drainage," "EUS-guided gallbladder drainage," "lumen-apposing metal stent," "gallbladder stenting," and "endoscopic gallbladder drainage." The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board.
Multiple studies have demonstrated acceptable outcomes comparing PC and both endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques, ET-GBD and EUS-GBD. Published data suggest that endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques may be associated with lower rates of adverse events and improved quality of life. However, there are important clinical considerations for choosing among these treatment options, requiring a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to therapeutic decision-making in these patients.
The implementation of EUS-GBD and ET-GBD in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis may result in favorable outcomes when compared with PC. Further improvements in techniques and training should lead to more widespread acceptance and dissemination of these treatment options.
对于被认为不适合手术的患者,内镜治疗急性胆囊炎的应用范围不断扩大。传统上采用经皮胆囊造口术(PC)治疗,技术和设备的改进使得经内镜胆囊引流的应用有所增加。本文回顾了经内镜经乳头胆囊引流(ET-GBD)和超声内镜引导下胆囊引流(EUS-GBD)的技术方面,以及各自的技术/临床成功率和不良事件发生率。还回顾了非手术性胆囊引流技术(PC、ET-GBD 和 EUS-GBD)的可用比较数据。
通过使用包括“急性胆囊炎”、“介入性超声内镜”、“经皮胆囊造口术”、“经乳头胆囊引流”、“超声内镜引导下胆囊引流”、“腔镜贴合金属支架”、“胆囊支架”和“内镜胆囊引流”等关键词,在 MEDLINE 数据库中搜索了截至 2021 年 3 月的相关文章。由两位作者起草稿件,并由美国胃肠内镜技术委员会成员以及美国胃肠内镜管理委员会进行了审核。
多项研究比较了 PC 与两种内镜胆囊引流技术(ET-GBD 和 EUS-GBD),结果显示两者具有可接受的结果。发表的数据表明,内镜胆囊引流技术可能与较低的不良事件发生率和改善的生活质量相关。然而,在这些治疗选择中存在重要的临床考虑因素,需要采用多学科和协作的方法来制定这些患者的治疗决策。
与 PC 相比,在高危手术患者中实施 EUS-GBD 和 ET-GBD 可能会带来有利的结果。技术和培训的进一步改进应导致更广泛地接受和传播这些治疗选择。