We have located links that may give you full text access.
EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a propensity score analysis with 1-year follow-up data.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2021 March
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is a safe alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PT-GBD) for acute cholecystitis. How the procedure compares with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is uncertain. The aim of the current study is to compare the outcomes of EUS-GBD with LC for acute cholecystitis.
METHODS: This was propensity score analysis of all patients admitted for acute cholecystitis between 2012 and 2018. Consecutive patients who received EUS-GBD or LC were included. Patients were matched for age, sex, and age-adjusted Charlson score. Outcome measurements included 30-day adverse events, mortality, recurrent cholecystitis, recurrent biliary events, reinterventions, and readmissions.
RESULTS: During the study period, 60 patients were selected (30 EUS-GBD vs 30 LC) after propensity score matching. Technical success rates (100% vs 100%), clinical success rates (93.3% vs 100%, P = 1), lengths of hospital stay (6.8 [8.1] vs 5.5 [2.7], P = 1), 30-day adverse events (4 [13.3%] vs 4 [13.3%], P = 1), and mortality rates (2 [6.7%] vs 0 [0%], P = .492) were similar. The rates of recurrent biliary events (3 [10%] vs 3 [10%], P = .784), reinterventions (4 [13.3%] vs 3 [10%], P = 1), and unplanned readmissions (3 [10%] vs 3 [10%], P = .784) in 1 year were also similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of EUS-GBD for acute cholecystitis were comparable with LC with acceptable rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis. These results support the role of EUS-GBD as an alternative to LC in patients who may or may not be surgically fit to undergo definitive cholecystectomy.
METHODS: This was propensity score analysis of all patients admitted for acute cholecystitis between 2012 and 2018. Consecutive patients who received EUS-GBD or LC were included. Patients were matched for age, sex, and age-adjusted Charlson score. Outcome measurements included 30-day adverse events, mortality, recurrent cholecystitis, recurrent biliary events, reinterventions, and readmissions.
RESULTS: During the study period, 60 patients were selected (30 EUS-GBD vs 30 LC) after propensity score matching. Technical success rates (100% vs 100%), clinical success rates (93.3% vs 100%, P = 1), lengths of hospital stay (6.8 [8.1] vs 5.5 [2.7], P = 1), 30-day adverse events (4 [13.3%] vs 4 [13.3%], P = 1), and mortality rates (2 [6.7%] vs 0 [0%], P = .492) were similar. The rates of recurrent biliary events (3 [10%] vs 3 [10%], P = .784), reinterventions (4 [13.3%] vs 3 [10%], P = 1), and unplanned readmissions (3 [10%] vs 3 [10%], P = .784) in 1 year were also similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of EUS-GBD for acute cholecystitis were comparable with LC with acceptable rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis. These results support the role of EUS-GBD as an alternative to LC in patients who may or may not be surgically fit to undergo definitive cholecystectomy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app