The Treatment of Critically Ill Patients With Acute Cholecystitis

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing percutaneous cholecystostomy and cholecystectomy

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.

Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common and potentially life-threatening condition. While early cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder independent of the means of access) has been unequivocally established as the gold standard for the management of young and “fit for surgery” patients with AC (1–3), the optimal management of critically ill and elderly patients with acute cholecystitis remains a topic of discussion. The surgical management of elderly and critically ill patients is thought to be associated with poor outcomes. Rates of morbidity and mortality as high as 40% and 13% respectively have been reported in this critical subset of patients (4–7).

Current guidelines, including the well established Tokyo guidelines recommend gallbladder drainage via percutaneous cholecystostomy (placement of a drain or a tube with the aim of draining the gallbladder content usually performed under local anesthesia and image guidance via ultrasound or computed tomography) in such cases (8, 9). The number of publications on percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) rapidly increased after the publication of the Tokyo guidelines. Many authors have either used PC as a bridge to surgery or as a definitive management of AC. These publications however are entirely retrospective with limited case numbers (10–12). Therefore, no solid evidence on the benefit of PC has been established in the medical literature so far. The aim of this systematic review therefore was to investigate the clinical benefit of PC in the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis by comparing the outcomes of critically ill patients managed with PC to those of similar patients managed with cholecystectomy (CC). The null hypothesis assumed there is no difference amongst both interventions with regard to outcomes.

Methods

The study was designed in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (13). A protocol with methodological details was published previously (14).

Literature search

A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus was performed. We used the following search terms: acute cholecystitis OR severe cholecystitis OR cholecystitis AND cholecystectomy OR laparoscopic cholecystectomy OR open cholecystectomy AND Cholecystostomy OR percutaneous cholecystectomy OR gallbladder drain OR gallbladder tube OR transhepatic gallbladder drain OR transhepatic gallbladder tube OR cholecystostomy tube. The search was limited to original articles based on human studies published between 2000 and 2014. In addition the “related citation” function in PubMed was used to widen the search. Finally, the reference lists of eligible articles were hand searched.

Study selection and data extraction

Two independent investigators screened the included studies in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Study selection was performed as outlined in the previously published protocol (14).

Only articles comparing CC and PC for the definitive management of critically ill patients with AC were included for meta-analysis.

The data extracted from the selected articles included: publication language, year and country of origin, size of study population, study design, type of intervention (PC/CC), length of hospital stay in days, morbidity and mortality rates, re-intervention, readmission for biliary complaints, and cost of treatment.

Assessment for risk of bias and statistical analysis

Two investigators independently assessed risk of bias of all the studies included. As per the instructions outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess quality of non-randomized data (15). Statistical analysis was performed only on extracted data from the selected articles. The meta-analysis was done on R 64 bit version 3.2.2 using the metafor package (16). Where possible, pooled analyses were performed to compute the odds ratio (OR) using a 95% confidence interval (CI). The degree of heterogeneity between studies was calculated for each analysis.

Results

The selection of articles for meta-analysis is summarized in the eFigure. No controlled studies evaluating PC vs. CC have been published so far. Six retrospective studies with a total of 337 500 patients (PC 10 045, CC 327 455) were included in the meta-analysis (17–22). The characteristics of the studies included are presented in the Table. All studies included were published between 2000 and 2014. The sample size ranged from 42 to 306 747 patients. Wherever available, data on publication language, year and country of origin were recorded. Data on sample size, study design, inclusion criteria, and type of intervention were available for all studies. Morbidity and mortality rates were available for all studies. Cost of treatment data were available for two studies (18, 22). Simorov et al. (22) reported an estimated cost of patient care for the initial hospital stay and all further visits to the clinic within a follow-up period of 30 days. Anderson et al. (18) reported the total cost for the initial encounter adjusted for inflation to 2010 prices. The data provided by both studies were therefore not comparable (Table).

Table

Characteristics of studies included

eFigure

Flow diagram for article selection and inclusion

Primary outcomes

In-hospital and 30-day mortality

One of the included studies reported no mortality data for cholecystectomy (21). A second study did not report adjusted mortality odds (17). Three studies had mortality counts < 5 in one or both arms making statistical inference difficult (17, 20, 21). 30-day mortality was reported in only one study (17). Only one study was in favour of PC over CC with regard to mortality (19). Pooled results provided very strong evidence against the null hypothesis with significantly higher odds of mortality in the PC group in comparison to the CC group. Similar results were obtained on pooled unadjusted mortality analysis (OR: 4.28; 95% C [1.72; 10.62], p = 0.0017) (Figure 1a).

Figure 1a

Forest Plot of mortality after intervention

Rate of complications

All but one study reported complication rates (17). Two studies reported adjusted odds ratios for complications (18, 22). Pooled results did not identify any statistically significant difference amongst PC and CC with regard to complications (95% CI [0.36; 1.53], p= 0.42), Figure 1b. The pooled adjusted odds ratios for complications (from two studies) slightly favored PC (OR 0.44; 95% CI [0.21; 0.93], p = 0.0327).

Figure 1b

Forest Plot of complication rates

Secondary outcomes

Length of stay

Length of stay (LOS) was available for all studies. The mean LOS was significantly shorter in patients managed with cholecystectomy in comparison to those managed with percutaneous cholecystostomy (OR 1.41; 95% CI [1.02; 1.95], p = 0.0401) (Figure 2a).

Figure 2a

Forest plot of length of stay in hospital

Re-intervention

Re-intervention information was available for three studies (17, 20, 21). Re-intervention was defined as any surgical, endoscopic or radiological procedure aimed at addressing complications of the primary intervention (CC or PC). Only one study favoured PC with regard to re-intervention (17). Pooled results did not show any difference amongst both arms with regard to re-intervention (Figure 2b).

Figure 2b

Forest plot of re-intervention following PC or CC

Readmission

Readmission data for biliary reasons (cholecystitis, biliary colics, cholangitis, pancreatitis, or catheter slippage) was available in three studies (19–21). Pooled results provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis with higher rates of readmission in the PC group (OR 2.16; 95% CI [1.72; 2.73], p<0.0001) (Figure 2c).

Figure 2c

Forest plot of readmission for biliary reasons following management with PC or CC

Discussion

This systematic review was conducted to investigate the benefit of PC in comparison to CC in the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. Six studies including 337 500 patients were included in this analysis. The risk of mortality was significantly higher in the PC group compared to the CC group. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the PC group. There were significantly more readmissions for biliary reasons in the PC group compared to the CC group. However, no statistically significant difference was found amongst both arms with respect to complications and re-intervention.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy represents one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide and has been shown to be the gold standard for the management of fit patients with AC (1, 23–27). On the other hand, elderly and critically ill patients undergoing cholecystectomy for AC might be at high risk for conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery, complications (especially bile duct injury in over 40%), or even death (over 4%) (28, 29). Percutaneous cholecystostomy has been recommended as an option for the management of this subgroup of patients (8, 9, 30).

While high success rates of over 90% with a procedural mortality of just 0.5% have been reported in some small retrospective series for PC, large case–control studies have reported high rates of morbidity, mortality (up to 5%), and readmission in patients managed with PC (10, 31). In a systematic review from 2009, Winbladh et al. reported an overall mortality rate of 15.4% for PC (3). The rate of mortality for emergency cholecystectomy in this systematic review was 13.0%. The authors chose not to compare complication rates after PC with those after CC due to uncertainty with regard to the quality of reported data. Nonetheless, this systematic review was inconclusive on the role of PC in the management of critically ill patients with AC.

A more recent Cochrane review by Gurusamy and colleagues (32) investigated the efficacy of PC in the management of elderly and high risk patients with AC. Two studies included 156 patients managed with PC either as an alternative to CC or as a bridging procedure prior to CC were included for analysis. No significant differences were identified between both intervention groups with regard to morbidity and mortality. Thus the current literature does not provide any solid evidence on the benefit of PC over CC in this critical subset of patients.

In contrast to the two previous reviews (3, 32), the findings from this systematic review of six studies including more than 330 000 patients suggest PC to be associated with increased odds of mortality. Mortality data included all deaths, defined as in-hospital or 30-day mortality according to whichever was reported in the individual studies. The cause of death was directly related to acute cholecystitis and no distinction was made between death during and after procedure.

Patients managed with PC were hospitalized longer than those managed with CC. The length of stay was defined as the time interval between admission and discharge with regard to the index admission. Besides, the rate of readmission for biliary complaints was significantly higher in the PC group.

There was no difference in odds of complications and re-intervention amongst both arms. This was a rather interesting finding because higher rates of complications and re-intervention would be expected following the higher odds of readmission for biliary reasons. Complications such as catheter slippage, bile leak, persistent or recurrent cholecystitis would eventually necessitate re-intervention (placement of a new PC catheter or cholecystectomy). These findings suggest that PC is comparable to CC with regard to the rate of complications and reintervention.

Although PC has been included in most guidelines as an option for the management of critically ill patients with AC, only the Tokyo guidelines provide well-defined criteria (grade III and partly grade II AC) for its use (8, 9). However, current evidence suggests that quite a number of patients managed with PC as per Tokyo guidelines recommendation could be candidates for primary cholecystectomy (33). Besides the indication for PC, timing with respect to symptom onset and technique (transhepatic or subhepatic) of catheter insertion seem to vary widely amongst different institutions (34). It is also not clear how long the catheter should be left in place. Furthermore, data on the fate of the patient after PC is rare. These variations make it extremely difficult to compare outcomes of PC from different centers (34, 35). Thus there is need to standardize this procedure as has long been done for cholecystectomy.

Taken together, the results of this systematic review suggest that patients undergoing PC are at increased risk for death compared to those undergoing CC. Besides, PC is associated with a longer length of stay in hospital and higher rate of readmission for biliary reasons compared to CC. However, PC is as safe as CC in the management of AC and the rate of complications and re-intervention following PC is not necessarily higher than that of CC.

Although a very large number of patients was included in this meta-analysis a number of limitations must be mentioned. First, no randomized controlled trials are available on the topic of investigation, thus all the studies included were based on a retrospective design. Therefore, the presence of unknown confounders could not be excluded. Second, it is conceivable that patients managed with PC were generally sicker compared to those managed with CC. Thus patients undergoing PC would per see have been at increased risk of poor outcomes compared to those managed with CC. This constitutes a possible major bias. Third, there was a high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies included. This divergence must be blamed on the variations in the study population of the individual studies included in this meta-analysis. Many relevant confounders such as age, sex, and concomitant conditions were inconsistently reported and therefore were not analyzed (36, 37). Fourth, it is also possible that not all eligible articles were located by the chosen search strategy. Fifth, the majority of studies were single-centered in design, and in one case, the same group reported two studies using registry data (California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Data and Nationwide Inpatient Sample, USA) (18, 19). This might have resulted in an overlap of included patients. However, the results of the meta-analysis remained unchanged after removal of one of these studies (18). The results reported in this study therefore need to be validated in prospective studies like the ongoing CHOCOLATE TRIAL in the Netherlands (38).

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. Percutaneous cholecystostomy was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality, longer length of stay in hospital and higher readmission rates compared to cholecystectomy. Both interventions were comparable with regard to complications and the need for re-intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.

Manuscript received on 9 November 2015; revised version accepted on 14 June 2016.

Corresponding author
Dr. med. Peter C. Ambe
Helios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal
Lehrstuhl für Chirurgie II
Universität Witten-Herdecke
Heusner Str. 40
42283 Wuppertal, Germany

@Supplementary material
For eReferences please refer to:
www.aerzteblatt-international.de/ref3316

eFigure, eSupplement:
www.aerzteblatt-international.de/16m0545

References

1. Ambe P, Weber SA, Christ H, et al.: Cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. How time-critical are the so called „golden 72 hours“? Or better „golden 24 hours“ and „silver 25–72 hour“? A case control study. World J Emerg Surg 2014; 9: 60

2. Gutt CN, Encke J, Köninger J, et al.: Acute cholecystitis: early versus delayed cholecystectomy, a multicenter randomized trial (ACDC Study, NCT00447304). Ann Surg 2013; 258: 385–91

3. Winbladh A, Gullstrand P, Svanvik J, et al.: Systematic review of cholecystostomy as a treatment option in acute cholecystitis. HPB (Oxford) 2009; 11: 183–93

4. Al-Jundi W, Cannon T, Antakia R, et al.: Percutaneous cholecystostomy as an alternative to cholecystectomy in high risk patients with biliary sepsis: a district general hospital experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012; 94: 99–101

5. Ambe PC, Weber SA, Christ H, et al.: Primary cholecystectomy is feasible in elderly patients with acute cholecystitis. Aging Clin Exp Res 2015; 27: 921–6

6. Chang YR, Ahn YJ, Jang JY, et al.: Percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in patients with high comorbidity and re-evaluation of treatment efficacy. Surgery 2014; 155: 615–22

7. Ferrarese AG, Solej M, Enrico S, et al.: Elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly: our experience. BMC Surg 2013; 13: 21

8. Kimura Y, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al.: Definitions, pathophysiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14: 15–26

9. Kiriyama S, Takada T, Strasberg SM, et al.: TG13 guidelines for diagnosis and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2013; 20: 24–34

10. Li M, Li N, Ji W, et al.: Percutaneous cholecystostomy is a definitive treatment for acute cholecystitis in elderly high-risk patients. Am Surg 2013; 79: 524–7

11. Mansour JC, Yopp AC: Percutaneous cholecystostomy: the challenges of cohort analysis. J Surg Res 2014; 190: 417–8

12. Nikfarjam M, Shen L, Fink MA, et al.: Percutaneous cholecystostomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis in the era of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2013; 23: 474–80

13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336–41

14. Ambe PC, Kaptanis S, Papadakis M, et al.: Cholecystectomy vs. percutaneous cholecystostomy for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis: a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 77

15. Wells GA, Shea B, O´Connell D, et al.: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysis. 2000.

16. Viechtbauer W: Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010; 36: 1–48

17. Abi-Haidar Y, Sanchez V, Williams SA, et al.: Revisiting percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis based on a 10-year experience. Arch Surg 2012; 147: 416–22

18. Anderson JE, Chang DC, Talamini MA: A nationwide examination of outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy compared with cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, 1998–2010. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3406–11

19. Anderson JE, Inui T, Talamini MA, et al.: Cholecystostomy offers no survival benefit in patients with acute acalculous cholecystitis and severe sepsis and shock. J Surg Res 2014; 190: 517–21

20. Melloul E, Denys A, Demartines N, et al.: Percutaneous drainage versus emergency cholecystectomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in critically ill patients: does it matter? World J Surg 2011; 35: 826–33

21. Rodriguez-Sanjuan JC, Arruabarrena A, Sanchez-Moreno L, et al.: Acute cholecystitis in high surgical risk patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy or emergency cholecystectomy? Am J Surg 2012; 204: 54–9

22. Simorov A, Ranade A, Parcells J, et al.: Emergent cholecystostomy is superior to open cholecystectomy in extremely ill patients with acalculous cholecystitis: a large multicenter outcome study. Am J Surg 2013; 206: 935–40; discussion 940–1

23. Ambe P, Esfahani BJ, Tasci I, et al.: Is laparoscopic cholecystectomy more challenging in male patients? Surg Endos 2011; 25: 2236–40

24. Banz V, Gsponer T, Candinas D, et al.: Population-based analysis of 4113 patients with acute cholecystitis: defining the optimal time-point for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 964–70

25. Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Gluud C, et al.: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 2010; 97: 141–50

26. Gurusamy KS, Davidson C, Gluud C, et al.: Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 6: CD005440

27. Kolla SB, Aggarwal S, Kumar A, et al.: Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 1323–7

28. Brunt LM, Quasebarth MA, Dunnegan DL, et al.: Outcomes analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the extremely elderly. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 700–5

29. Dubecz A, Langer M, Stadlhuber RJ, et al.: Cholecystectomy in the very elderly–is 90 the new 70? J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16: 282–5

30. Miura F, Takada T, Strasberg SM, et al.: TG13 flowchart for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2013; 20: 47–54

31. de Mestral C, Gomez D, Haas B, et al.: Cholecystostomy: a bridge to hospital discharge but not delayed cholecystectomy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013; 74: 175–9; discussion 179–80

32. Gurusamy KS, Rossi M, Davidson BR: Percutaneous cholecystostomy for high-risk surgical patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 8: CD007088

33. Ambe PC, Christ H, Wassenberg D: Does the Tokyo guidelines predict the extent of gallbladder inflammation in patients with acute cholecystitis? A single center retrospective analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2015; 15: 142

34. Ambe PC, Zirngibl H: The fate of patients managed with percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis. Surgery 2016; 159: 1479–80

35. Mizrahi I, Mazeh H, Yuval JB, et al.: Perioperative outcomes of delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis with and without percutaneous cholecystostomy. Surgery 2015; 158: 728–35

36. Ambe PC, Papadakis M, Zirngibl H: A proposal for a preoperative clinical scoring system for acute cholecystitis. J Surg Res 2016; 200: 473–9

37. Papadakis M, Ambe PC, Zirngibl H: Critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis are at increased risk for extensive gallbladder inflammation. World J Emerg Surg 2015; 10: 59

38. Kortram K, van Ramshorst B, Bollen TL, et al.: Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012; 13: 7