Trial sequential analysis of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients with acute cholecystitis.

Background And Aims: Meta-analytic comparison of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) for acute cholecystitis (AC) brings the risk of spurious results if too few studies are included. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) can overcome this, providing information about its credibility.

Methods: Comparative studies between EUS-GBD, using lumen-apposing metal stents, and PT-GBD for AC until July 2021 were used for conventional meta-analysis and TSA, which allowed the use of monitoring boundaries and the estimation of the required information size (RIS) needed to prove credibility.

Results: Four studies accrued 535 patients. Technical success was in favor of PT-GBD (relative risk [RR], .967; P = .036), but TSA estimated that 1663 participants would be needed to avoid a Type I error (false positive). Clinical success was similar (RR, .965; P = .146), and TSA supported the absence of any demonstrable superiority of one therapy rather than a Type II error (false negative). EUS-GBD reduced overall adverse events (RR, .424; P < .001) and unplanned readmissions (RR, .215; P < .001), and TSA confirmed the avoidance of a Type I error, with early RIS achievement, providing necessary credibility. EUS-GBD had fewer reinterventions (RR, .244; P < .001), but a Type I error was not avoided, needing additional 97 patients to the accrued 535 to prove credibility.

Conclusions: PT-GBD can provide superior technical success than EUS-GBD if a very large sample size is accrued, thus limiting the single-patient benefit. Clinical success is probably equivalent. EUS-GBD convincingly decreased overall adverse events and unplanned readmissions, whereas the need for reinterventions requires additional studies.