EUS-guided cholecystostomy versus endoscopic transpapillary cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients.

Background And Aims: Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (GBD) has been performed as an alternative to percutaneous drainage for acute cholecystitis. To date, there has been no comparative study between EUS-guided cholecystostomy (EUSC) and endoscopic transpapillary cholecystostomy (ETC). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of EUSC and ETC.

Methods: A retrospective review of an endoscopic GBD database prospectively collected at the Asan Medical Center (between July 2010 and December 2014) was performed to identify consecutive patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent attempted endoscopic GBD. Procedural and long-term outcomes were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

Results: A total of 172 patients (76 in the EUSC group and 96 in the ETC group) were included in this study. Seven patients who failed to undergo ETC crossed over to the EUSC group. After adjustment with the IPTW method, technical success (99.3% vs 86.6%, P < .01) and clinical success (99.3% vs 86%, P < .01) rates were significantly higher in the EUSC group than in the ETC group. The procedure-related adverse event rate was significantly higher in the ETC group (7.1% vs 19.3%, P = .02). The cholecystitis or cholangitis recurrence rate (12.4% vs 3.2%) was also higher in the ETC group than in the EUSC group, as identified using Cox analysis (hazard ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, .73-12.9; P = .04).

Conclusions: In patients with acute cholecystitis who are unfit for surgery, EUSC may be a more suitable treatment method than ETC.