Preprint Review Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Management of Acute Cholecystitis in High-Risk Patients: Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage as a Definitive Treatment vs. Emergency Cholecystectomy. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Version 1 : Received: 2 July 2023 / Approved: 3 July 2023 / Online: 4 July 2023 (03:39:16 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Cirocchi, R.; Amato, L.; Ungania, S.; Buononato, M.; Tebala, G.D.; Cirillo, B.; Avenia, S.; Cozza, V.; Costa, G.; Davies, R.J.; Sapienza, P.; Coccolini, F.; Mingoli, A.; Chiarugi, M.; Brachini, G. Management of Acute Cholecystitis in High-Risk Patients: Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage as a Definitive Treatment vs. Emergency Cholecystectomy—Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4903. Cirocchi, R.; Amato, L.; Ungania, S.; Buononato, M.; Tebala, G.D.; Cirillo, B.; Avenia, S.; Cozza, V.; Costa, G.; Davies, R.J.; Sapienza, P.; Coccolini, F.; Mingoli, A.; Chiarugi, M.; Brachini, G. Management of Acute Cholecystitis in High-Risk Patients: Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage as a Definitive Treatment vs. Emergency Cholecystectomy—Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4903.

Abstract

Background: This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGDB), as definitive treatment, is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). Material and methods: A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases in order to compare PTGDB as definitive treatment vs EC in AC. Results: Seventeen studies (1 Randomized Control Trials and 16 observational studies) have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGDB vs 4,663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who underwent open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who underwent cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). The quality assessment (ROBINS-I) of the not randomized studies showed a serious risk, differently the evaluation of the randomized study (RoB 2) showed a low risk of bias. Analysis of the results shows that PTGDB, despite being minimally invasive, do not have different incidence of complications than EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I2 = 99%; P=0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) than in PTGDB group (13.78 %) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; P < 0.00001), furthermore the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I2 = 48 %; P<0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; P<0.00001) were lower in EC group. Conclusions: No advantage in using PTGDB as a definitive treatment over EC in the management of critically ill patients with AC has been demonstrated; the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest using EC as the treatment of first choice, even for very high-surgical-risk patient in which PTGDB should be reserved. The major limitation of this systematic review and meta-analysis is associated to a low quality of evidence for the serious bias in the not randomized studies. For this reason, new high powered and well-designed clinical trials are needed to recommend PTGDB as definitive treatment in patients unfit for surgery or those who refuse to undergo surgery.

Keywords

acute cholecystitis; percutaneous cholecystectomy; cholecystectomy

Subject

Medicine and Pharmacology, Surgery

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.