-
Clinical Endoscopy Sep 2018Surgery remains the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis except in high-risk candidates where percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD), endoscopic...
Surgery remains the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis except in high-risk candidates where percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD), endoscopic transpapillary cystic duct stenting (ET-CDS), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) are potential choices. PT-GBD is contraindicated in patients with coagulopathy or ascites and is not preferred by patients owing to aesthetic reasons. ET-CDS is successful only if the cystic duct can be visualized and cannulated. For 189 patients who underwent EUS-GBD via insertion of a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), the composite technical success rate was 95.2%, which increased to 96.8% when LAMS was combined with co-axial self-expandable metal stent (SEMS). The composite clinical success rate was 96.7%. We observed a small risk of recurrent cholecystitis (5.1%), gastrointestinal bleeding (2.6%) and stent migration (1.1%). Cautery enhanced LAMS significantly decreases the stent deployment time compared to non-cautery enhanced LAMS. Prophylactic placement of a pigtail stent or SEMS through the LAMS avoids re-interventions, particularly in patients, where it is intended to remain in situ indefinitely. Limited evidence suggests that the efficacy of EUS-GBD via LAMS is comparable to that of PT-GBD with the former showing better results in postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, and need for antibiotics. EUS-GBD via LAMS is a safe and efficacious option when performed by experts.
PubMed: 29852730
DOI: 10.5946/ce.2018.024 -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... 2018Patients with acute cholecystitis are treated with early cholecystectomy. A subset of patients are unfit for surgery due to comorbidities and late presentation. Prompt... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with acute cholecystitis are treated with early cholecystectomy. A subset of patients are unfit for surgery due to comorbidities and late presentation. Prompt gall bladder drainage (GBD) with percutaneous or endoscopic approach remains a viable therapeutic option for nonoperative candidates. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided transluminal gall bladder drainage (EUS-GBD) continues to evolve as an alternative approach to percutaneous drainage. With continued refinement in stent technology, lumen apposing self-expandable metal stent (LAMS) offers several advantages. We performed a pooled analysis on the efficacy and safety of EUS-GBD with LAMS in nonoperative candidates with acute cholecystitis.
METHODS
Extensive English language literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar using keywords "endoscopic ultrasound", "stent", "gallbladder", "acute cholecystitis", and "cholecystostomy" from Jan 2000 to Dec 2016. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions.
RESULTS
Data was extracted from 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria ( = 233). Pooled proportion of technical success was 93.86% (95% CI = 90.56 to 96.49) and clinical success was 92.48% (95% CI = 88.9 to 95.42). Overall complication rate was 18.31% (95% CI = 13.49 to 23.68) and stent related complication rate was 8.16% (95% CI = 4.03 to 14.96) in the pooled percentage of patients. Pooled proportion for perforation was 6.71% (95% CI 3.65 to 10.6) and recurrent cholangitis/cholecystitis was noted in 4.05% (95% CI = 1.64 to 7.48). Publication bias calculated using Harbord-Egger bias indicator gave a value of -0.61 (95% CI = -1.39 to 0.16, = 0.11). The Begg-Mazumdar indicator for bias gave Kendall's tau value of -0.42 ( ≥ 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-GBD with LAMS is a safe and alternative treatment modality for patients needing gallbladder drainage, with acceptable intraprocedural and postprocedural complications. However, due to the limited data and lack of direct comparison with other methods, further controlled trials are necessary to estimate the overall efficacy and safety and the role of EUS-GBD with LAMS in management of nonoperative patients with acute cholecystitis.
Topics: Cholecystitis; Cholecystostomy; Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Self Expandable Metallic Stents; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 29850458
DOI: 10.1155/2018/7070961 -
BMJ Open Mar 2018Many researchers have addressed overdosage and inappropriate use of antibiotics. Many meta-analyses have investigated antibiotic prophylaxis for low-risk laparoscopic...
INTRODUCTION
Many researchers have addressed overdosage and inappropriate use of antibiotics. Many meta-analyses have investigated antibiotic prophylaxis for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the aim of reducing unnecessary antibiotic use. Most of these meta-analyses have concluded that prophylactic antibiotics are not required for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomies. This study aimed to assess the validity of this conclusion by systematically reviewing these meta-analyses.
METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken. Searches were limited to meta-analyses and systematic reviews. PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from inception until March 2016 using the following keyword combinations: 'antibiotic prophylaxis', 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy' and 'systematic review or meta-analysis'. Two independent reviewers selected meta-analyses or systematic reviews evaluating prophylactic antibiotics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed in these meta-analyses were also reviewed.
RESULTS
Seven meta-analyses regarding prophylactic antibiotics for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy that had examined a total of 28 RCTs were included. Review of these meta-analyses revealed 48 miscounts of the number of outcomes. Six RCTs were inappropriate for the meta-analyses; one targeted patients with acute cholecystitis, another measured inappropriate outcomes, the original source of a third was not found and the study protocols of the remaining three were not appropriate for the meta-analyses. After correcting the above miscounts and excluding the six inappropriate RCTs, pooled risk ratios (RRs) were recalculated. These showed that, contrary to what had previously been concluded, antibiotics significantly reduced the risk of postoperative infections. The rates of surgical site, distant and overall infections were all significantly reduced by antibiotic administration (RR (95% CI); 0.71 (0.51 to 0.99), 0.37 (0.19 to 0.73), 0.50 (0.34 to 0.75), respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of postoperative infections after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Elective Surgical Procedures; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Wound Infection; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 29549197
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016666 -
Revista Espanola de Enfermedades... Oct 2017There is currently no consensus with regard to the use of cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy as the therapy of choice for acute acalculous cholecystitis.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
There is currently no consensus with regard to the use of cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy as the therapy of choice for acute acalculous cholecystitis. The goal of this study was to review the scientific evidence on the management of these patients according to clinical and radiographic findings.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2016 was performed. The databases of PubMed, Índice Médico Español, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched according to the following inclusion criteria: publication language (English or Spanish), adult patients, acalculous etiology and appropriate study design.
RESULTS
A total of 1,013 articles were identified and ten articles were selected for review. These included five observational controlled studies and five case series which described the outcome of patients treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy and emergency cholecystectomy. No prospective or randomized studies were identified using the search criteria. The data from the literature and analysis of results suggested that percutaneous cholecystostomy may be a definitive therapy for acute acalculous cholecystitis with no need for subsequent elective cholecystectomy.
CONCLUSIONS
Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be the first treatment option for patients with acute acalculous cholecystitis except in cases with a perforation or gallbladder gangrene. Patients at low surgical risk may benefit from cholecystectomy but both treatment options may be effective. Percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients with acute acalculous cholecystitis may be a definitive therapy with no need for a subsequent elective cholecystectomy. However, the overall quality of studies is low and the final recommendations should be considered with caution.
Topics: Acalculous Cholecystitis; Cholecystectomy; Humans
PubMed: 28776380
DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4902/2017 -
Digestive Surgery 2017In the era of advanced surgical techniques and improved perioperative care, the willingness to perform emergency operations in elderly patients continues to increase.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In the era of advanced surgical techniques and improved perioperative care, the willingness to perform emergency operations in elderly patients continues to increase. This systematic review aimed at assessing the clinical outcomes of early cholecystectomy in elderly patients with acute cholecystitis.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for studies reporting on early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in patients aged ≥70 years. The conversion rate, perioperative morbidity, and mortality were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Eight articles fell within the scope of this study. In total, 592 patients were identified. The mean age was 81 years. Early cholecystectomy was performed laparoscopically in 316 patients (53%) and open in 276 patients (47%). The procedure was associated with a conversion rate of 23% (95% CI 18.6-28.3), a perioperative morbidity of 24% (95% CI 20.5-27.5), and a mortality of 3.5% (95% CI 2.3-5.4).
CONCLUSION
Early cholecystectomy seems to be a feasible treatment in elderly patients with acute cholecystitis. To reduce morbidity, patients who may benefit from surgery ought to be selected carefully. Future prospective studies should compare early cholecystectomy with alternative treatments to select the treatment that is most appropriate for elderly patients.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Cholecystitis, Acute; Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28095385
DOI: 10.1159/000455241 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Mar 2017Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common differential for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain. The diagnostic accuracy of history,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common differential for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain. The diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, and bedside laboratory tests for AC have not been quantitatively described.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review to determine the utility of history and physical examination (H&P), laboratory studies, and ultrasonography (US) in diagnosing AC in the ED.
METHODS
We searched medical literature from January 1965 to March 2016 in PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS using a strategy derived from the following formulation of our clinical question: patients-ED patients suspected of AC; interventions-H&P, laboratory studies, and US findings commonly used to diagnose AC; comparator-surgical pathology or definitive diagnostic radiologic study confirming AC; and outcome-the operating characteristics of the investigations in diagnosing AC were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated using Meta-DiSc with a random-effects model (95% CI). Study quality and risks for bias were assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
RESULTS
Separate PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS searches retrieved studies for H&P (n = 734), laboratory findings (n = 74), and US (n = 492). Three H&P studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria with AC prevalence of 7%-64%. Fever had sensitivity ranging from 31% to 62% and specificity from 37% to 74%; positive LR [LR+] was 0.71-1.24, and negative LR [LR-] was 0.76-1.49. Jaundice sensitivity ranged from 11% to 14%, and specificity from 86% to 99%; LR+ was 0.80-13.81, and LR- was 0.87-1.03. Murphy's sign sensitivity was 62% (range = 53%-71%), and specificity was 96% (range = 95%-97%); LR+ was 15.64 (range = 11.48-21.31), and LR- was 0.40 (range = 0.32-0.50). Right upper quadrant pain had sensitivity ranging from 56% to 93% and specificity of 0% to 96%; LR+ ranged from 0.92 to 14.02, and LR- from 0.46 to 7.86. One laboratory study met criteria with a 26% prevalence of AC. Elevated bilirubin had a sensitivity of 40% (range = 12%-74%) and specificity of 93% (range = 77%-99%); LR+ was 5.80 (range = 1.25-26.99), and LR- was 0.64 (range = 0.39-1.08). Five US studies with a prevalence of AC of between 10% and 46%. US sensitivity was 86% (range = 78%-94%) and specificity was 71% (range = 66%-76%); LR+ was 3.23 (range = 1.74-6.00), and LR- was 0.18 (range = 0.10-0.33).
CONCLUSION
Variable disease prevalence, coupled with limited sample sizes, increases the risk of selection bias. Individually, none of these investigations reliably rule out AC. Development of a clinical decision rule to include evaluation of H&P, laboratory data, and US are more likely to achieve a correct diagnosis of AC.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Cholecystitis, Acute; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Physical Examination; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 27862628
DOI: 10.1111/acem.13132 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Cholelithiasis refers to the presence of gallstones, which are concretions that form in the biliary tract, usually in the gallbladder. Cholelithiasis is one of the most... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cholelithiasis refers to the presence of gallstones, which are concretions that form in the biliary tract, usually in the gallbladder. Cholelithiasis is one of the most common surgical problems worldwide and is particularly prevalent in most Western countries.Biliary colic is the term used for gallbladder pain experienced by a person with gallstones and without overt infection around the gallbladder. It is the most common manifestation of cholelithiasis, observed in over one-third of people with gallstones over the course of 10 or more years. Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used to relieve biliary colic pain, but their role needs further elucidation. They may decrease the frequency of short-term complications, such as mild form of acute cholecystitis, jaundice, cholangitis, and acute pancreatitis, but they may also increase the occurrence of more severe and possibly life-threatening adverse events such as gastrointestinal bleeding, renal function impairment, cardiovascular events, or milder events such as abdominal pain, drowsiness, headache, dizziness, or cutaneous manifestations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of NSAIDs in people with biliary colic.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and ClinicalTrials.gov until July 2016. We applied no language limitation.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials recruiting participants presenting with biliary colic and comparing NSAIDs versus no intervention, placebo, or other drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MF and AC) independently identified trials for inclusion. We used risk ratios (RR) to express intervention effect estimates, and we analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses, depending on the amount of heterogeneity. We controlled random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our predefined review protocol criteria for analysis. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias, considering the remaining trials to be at high risk of bias. The risk of selection bias in nine studies was unclear due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates. Five trials compared NSAIDs versus placebo, four trials compared NSAID versus opioids, and four trials compared NSAID versus spasmolytic drugs (one of the 12 trials was a three-arm study comparing NSAIDs versus both opioids and spasmolytic drugs). There were 828 randomised participants (minimum 30 and maximum 324 per trial), of whom 416 received NSAIDs and 412 received placebo, spasmolytic drugs, or opioids. Twenty-four per cent of the participants were males. The age of the participants in the trials ranged from 18 to 86 years. All people were admitted to emergency departments for acute biliary pain. There was no mortality. When compared with placebo, NSAIDs obtained a significantly lower proportion of participants without complete pain relief (RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; I = 0%; 5 trials; moderate-quality evidence), which was confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, but not regarding participants with complications (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15; I = 26%; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence). NSAIDs showed more pain control than spasmolytic drugs (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; I = 0%; 4 trials; low-quality evidence), which was not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, and a significantly lower proportion of participants with complications (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; I = 0%; 2 trials; low-quality evidence), which was also not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis. We found no difference in the proportions of participants without complete pain relief when comparing NSAIDs versus opioids (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.07; I = 52%), suggesting moderate heterogeneity among trials (4 trials; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial comparing NSAIDs versus opioids reported results on complications, finding no significant difference between treatments. None of the included trials reported severe adverse events. Seven out of the 12 trials assessed non-severe adverse events: in two out of the seven trials, adverse events were not observed, and minor events were reported in the remaining five trials.In addition, we found one ongoing RCT assessing the analgesic efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen in biliary colic.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs have been assessed in relatively few trials including a limited number of participants for biliary colic, considering its common occurrence. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias. There was no mortality. None of the included trials reported quality of life. The generalisability of the review is low as most of the RCTs included neither elderly people nor participants with comorbidities, who are more prone to complications as compared to others with biliary colic.The beneficial effect of NSAIDs compared with placebo on pain relief was confirmed when we applied Trial Sequential Analysis.The quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria was moderate for the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo regarding the outcome lack of pain relief and low or very low for the other outcomes and comparisons.We found only one trial at low risk of bias, following the predefined 'Risk of bias' domains. We found the risk of selection bias to be unclear in nine studies due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates.
PubMed: 27610712
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006390.pub2 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Aug 2016Besides cholecystectomy (CC), percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) has been recommended for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Besides cholecystectomy (CC), percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) has been recommended for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. However, solid evidence on the benefit of PC in this subgroup of patients is lacking.
METHODS
In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, we systematically searched the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for relevant studies published between 2000 and 2014. Two investigators independently screened the studies included.
RESULTS
Six studies with a total of 337 500 patients (PC 10 045, CC 327 455) were included for meta-analysis. Significant differences in favor of CC were recorded with regard to the rate of mortality (OR 4.28, [1.72 to 10.62], p = 0.0017), length of hospital stay (OR 1.41, [1.02 to 1.95], p = 0.04), and the rate of readmission for biliary complaints (OR 2.16, [1.72 to 2.73], p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between both intervention arms with regard to complications (OR 0.74, [0.36 to 1.53], p = 0.42) and re-interventions (OR 7.69, [0.68 to 87.33], p = 0.10).
CONCLUSION
The benefit of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) over cholecystectomy (CC) in the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis could not be proven in this systematic review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystitis, Acute; Cholecystostomy; Critical Illness; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Incidence; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27598871
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0545 -
Biochemia Medica 2016Platelet indices (PI) -- plateletcrit, mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet distribution width (PDW) -- are a group of derived platelet parameters obtained as a part... (Review)
Review
Platelet indices (PI) -- plateletcrit, mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet distribution width (PDW) -- are a group of derived platelet parameters obtained as a part of the automatic complete blood count. Emerging evidence suggests that PIs may have diagnostic and prognostic value in certain diseases. This study aimed to summarize the current scientific knowledge on the potential role of PIs as a diagnostic and prognostic marker in patients having emergency, non-traumatic abdominal surgery. In December 2015, we searched Medline/PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar to identify all articles on PIs. Overall, considerable evidence suggests that PIs are altered with acute appendicitis. Although the role of PI in the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen remains uncertain, low MPV might be useful in acute appendicitis and acute mesenteric ischemia, with high MPV predicting poor prognosis in acute mesenteric ischemia. The current lack of consistency and technical standards in studies involving PIs should be regarded as a serious limitation to comparing these studies. Further large, multicentre prospective studies concurrently collecting data from different ethnicities and genders are needed before they can be used in routine clinical practice.
Topics: Appendicitis; Blood Cell Count; Blood Platelets; Cholecystitis, Acute; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Mean Platelet Volume; Mesenteric Ischemia
PubMed: 27346963
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2016.020 -
Medicine Jun 2016The laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an important approach of treating acute cholecystitis and the timing of performing this given treatment is associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an important approach of treating acute cholecystitis and the timing of performing this given treatment is associated with clinical outcomes. Although several meta-analyses have been done to investigate the optimal timing of implementing this treatment, the conflicting findings from these meta-analyses still confuse decision-making. And thus, we performed this systematic review to assess discordant meta-analyses and generate conclusive findings to facilitate informed decision-making in clinical context eventually. We electronically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to include meta-analysis comparing early (within 7 days of the onset of symptoms) with delayed LC (at least 1 week after initial conservative treatment) for acute cholecystitis through August 2015. Two independent investigators completed all tasks including scanning and appraising eligibility, abstracting essential information using prespecified extraction form, assessing methodological quality using Oxford Levels of Evidence and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and assessing the reporting quality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), as well as implementing Jadad algorithm in each step for the whole process. A heterogeneity degree of ≤50% is accepted. Seven eligible meta-analyses were included eventually. Only one was Level I of evidence and remaining studies were Level II of evidence. The AMSTAR scores varied from 8 to 11 with a median of 9. The PRISMA scores varied from 19 to 26. The most heterogeneity level fell into the desired criteria. After implementing Jadad algorithm, 2 meta-analyses with more eligible RCTs were selected based on search strategies and implication of selection. The best available evidence indicated a nonsignificant difference in mortality, bile duct injury, bile leakage, overall complications, and conversion to open surgery, but a significant reduction in wound infection, hospitalization, and operation duration and improvement of the quality of life when compared early LC with delayed LC. However, number of work days lost, hospital costs, and patient satisfaction are warranted to be assessed further. With the best available evidence, we recommend early LC to be as the standard treatment option in treating acute cholecystitis.
Topics: Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Cholecystitis, Acute; Humans; Time-to-Treatment
PubMed: 27281088
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003835