Home > Riviste > Minerva Gastroenterology > Fascicoli precedenti > Articles online first > Minerva Gastroenterology 2021 Apr 01



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo



Minerva Gastroenterology 2021 Apr 01

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5985.21.02854-3


lingua: Inglese

Treatment of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients. Systematic review of the literature according to the levels of evidence

Andrea LISOTTI 1 , Bertrand NAPOLEON 2, Carlo FABBRI 3, Andrea ANDERLONI 4, Romano LINGUERRI 5, Igor BACCHILEGA 6, Pietro FUSAROLI 1

1 Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 2 Département de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital privé Jean Mermoz, Ramsay Générale de Santé, Lyon, France; 3 Gastroenterology Unit, Forli-Cesena Hospital, AUSL Romagna, Forli-Cesena, Italy; 4 Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center (IRCCS), Rozzano, Milan, Italy; 5 Surgical Unit, Hospital of Imola, Imola, Bologna, Italy; 6 Intensive Care Unit, Hospital of Imola, Imola, Bologna, Italy


Acute cholecystitis (AC) is the most common biliary stone disease complication. While there is consensus regarding cholecystectomy for AC, gallbladder drainage is indicated in elderly or high-risk surgical patients. We systematically reviewed available evidence in the field of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) for AC in high-risk surgical patients. The studies were classified according to their level of evidence (LE) according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine classification. Literature search retrieved 175 manuscripts; most of them were expert opinions (LE V, no. 53) or caseseries (LE IV, no. 29). There was no meta-analysis of RCT (LE Ia), while two randomized controlled trials (LE Ib) demonstrated that EUS-GBD was superior to percutaneous trans-hepatic-GBD (PT-GBD) regarding longterm outcomes (adverse events, recurrent cholecystitis, and reintervention). Several meta-analyses of cohort studies (LE IIa, no. 11) were designed to compare the three available drainage strategies (endoscopic, echoendoscopic and percutaneous) and to assess the pooled risk of adverse events. Comparison between surgery and EUS-GBD was done in a single retrospective study with a propensity score analysis (LE III). The outcomes of conversion from PT-GBD to EUS-GBD were covered by few retrospective studies (LE III). Several manuscripts (no. 69) were published on EUS-GBD as a rescue strategy in case of malignant biliary obstruction. The levels of evidence of EUS-GBD in the literature have evolved from initial descriptive studies to recent randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis of cohort studies. While several articles addressed the comparison among different techniques for GBD, in our opinion some topics and questions have not been adequately investigated. are still debated.

KEY WORDS: LAMS; Hot-Axios; PT-GBD; Cholecystogastrostomy; Cholecystoduodenostomy

inizio pagina