Open Cholecystostomy Under Local Anesthesia for Acute Cholecystitis in the Elderly and High-Risk Surgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality rates associated with cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis are higher in the critically ill elderly population. As an alternative to cholecystectomy, we report the results of treatment of acute cholecystitis in the elderly after open cholecystolithotomy with cholecystostomy tube placement under local anesthesia. METHODS: A case series was performed on 5 patients from August 2007 to April 2010 who presented with acute cholecystitis and underwent an open cholecystolithotomy and tube placement. Thirty-day mortality, intra- and immediate-postoperative complications, clinical improvement after drainage, additional biliary procedures needed, and outcome after cholecystostomy tube removal were recorded. RESULTS: Open cholecystolithotomy and tube placement were performed successfully in all patients and permitted resolution of the acute attack in all after a mean period of 3.75 days. Thirty-day mortality was 0%. Patients did not experience any intraoperative complications. We observed 100% rate of successful short-term outcomes in our patients including resolution pain, and objectively, normalization of leukocytosis, and defervescence. None of the patients required emergency cholecystectomy. All patients had their cholecystostomy tubes removed at a mean postoperative day 27. There were no cases of biliary leakage or tube dislodgement. There were no recurrences of acute cholecystitis within the mean follow-up of 20.75 months. DISCUSSION: Emergency open cholecystolithotomy and cholecystostomy tube placement represent an effective, safe, and definitive alternative treatment strategy for acute gallstone cholecystitis in selected elderly patients with a mortality rate of 0% in the authors' experience.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy instead of laparoscopy to treat acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic period: single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the accepted standard treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC) in patients eligible for surgery. Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) can provide a permanent treatment for high-risk patients for surgery or act as a bridge for later surgical treatment. This study is an evaluation of the use of PC during the current coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at a single hospital. METHODS: Fifty patients with AC were admitted as of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey through June 2020. Patients with pancreatitis, cholangitis, and/or incomplete data were excluded from the study. Data of the remaining 36 patients included in the study were recorded and a descriptive statistical analysis was performed. The patients were divided into three groups: PC (n=14), only conservative treatment with antibiotherapy (OC) (n=14), and LC (n=8). The findings were compared with a group of 70 similar patients from the pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: The mean age of the pandemic period patients was 53 years (range: 26-78 years). The female/male ratio was 1.11. PC was preferred in eight (11%) patients in the same period of the previous year, whereas 14 (39%) patients underwent PC in the pandemic period. Four of the 36 pandemic patients were positive for COVID-19, including one member of the PC group. There was one (7.1%) mortality in the pandemic-period PC group due to cardiac arrest. The length of hospital stay between the groups based on the type of treatment was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: LC is not recommended during the pandemic period; PC can be an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of AC.

[Cholecystostomy in acute cholecystitis in modern surgical practice]. / Kholetsistostomiya pri ostrom kholetsistite.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the results of treatment of acute cholecystitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A historical cohort study (1965-2016) included 1248 patients with acute obstructive cholecystitis and 154 patients with acute obstructive cholecystitis combined with ductal complications and obstructive jaundice. Cholecystostomy was used in all patients. A systematic review of the evidence base on the use of cholecystostomy in high-risk patients was carried out. RESULTS: Cholecystostomy through laparotomy was performed in 240 patients for the period 1965-1981. Overall mortality was 3.6%. Staged treatment strategy has been applied since 1982. Laparoscopic cholecystostomy followed by cholecystectomy through laparotomy was performed in 225 patients for the period from 1982 to 1992. Overall mortality rate was 3.2%. Laparoscopic cholecystostomy (n=617) followed by staged laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been applied for the period from 1993 to 2007. Overall mortality decreased up to 1.1%. Indications for laparoscopic cholecystostomy and staged treatment have been limited since 2008 (n=166). Overall mortality rate was 0.6%. The maximum postoperative mortality after cholecystostomy in some years reached 14.8%.Simultaneous surgeries through laparotomy in patients with acute obstructive cholecystitis and ductal complications were followed by mortality rate 8%, staged laparoscopic cholecystostomy and other minimally invasive technologies (endoscopic papillosphincterotomy with lithoextraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy) - 4.7%. CONCLUSION: External drainage of the gallbladder is more effective as additional method within staged minimally invasive treatment of complicated cholecystitis rather separate operation. Further analysis of treatment of high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (as most often selected for cholecystostomy) is required considering the absence of evidence base on this issue.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy: prognostic factors and comparison to cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding long-term outcomes following percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) are limited, and comparisons to cholecystectomy (CCY) are lacking. We hypothesized that chronic disease burden would predict 1-year mortality following PC, and that outcomes following PC and CCY would be similar when controlling for preprocedural risk factors. METHODS: We performed a 10-year retrospective cohort analysis of patients with acute cholecystitis managed by PC (n = 114) or CCY (n = 234). Treatment response was assessed by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria at PC/CCY and 72 h later. Logistic regression identified predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality following PC. PC and CCY patients were matched by age, Tokyo Guidelines (TG13) cholecystitis severity grade, and VASQIP calculator predicted mortality (n = 42/group). RESULTS: The presence of SIRS at 72 h following PC was associated with 30-day mortality [OR 8.9 (95% CI 2.6-30)]. SIRS at 72 h was present in and 21.4% of all PC patients, significantly higher than unmatched CCY patients (4.7%, p = 0.048). Independent predictors of 1-year mortality following PC were DNR status [19.7 (2.1-186)], disseminated cancer [7.5 (2.1-26)], and congestive heart failure [3.9 (1.4-11)]. PC patients with none of these risk factors had 17.9% 90-day mortality and no deaths after 90 days; late deaths continued to occur among patients with DNR, CHF, or disseminated cancer. At baseline, PC patients had greater acute and chronic disease burden than CCY patients. After matching, PC and CCY patients had similar age (69 vs. 70 years), TG13 grade (2.4 vs. 2.4), and predicted 30-day mortality (5.5 vs. 6.8%). Matched PC patients had higher 30-day mortality (14.3 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.109) and 180-day mortality (28.6 vs. 7.1%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment response to PC predicted 30-day mortality; DNR status, and chronic diseases predicted 1-year mortality. Although the matching procedure did not eliminate selection bias, PC was associated with persistent systemic inflammation and higher long-term mortality than CCY.

The Treatment of Critically Ill Patients With Acute Cholecystitis.

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.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Cholecystostomy in the Presence of Ascites.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the presence of ascites increases complications following placement of percutaneous cholecystostomy tubes (PCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all transhepatic PCTs placed between January 2005 and June 2014 was performed: 255 patients were included (median age of 65 y; range, 20-95 y). Of these patients, 97 had ascites and 158 had no ascites or only pelvic fluid. In all, 115 patients had calculous cholecystitis (45%), 127 had acalculous cholecystitis (50%), and 13 had common bile duct obstruction (5%). The primary outcome of interest was all complications, including bile peritonitis, pericatheter leakage requiring PCT change, pericholecystic abscess formation, drain dislodgment, or death from biliary sepsis within 14 days of initial PCT insertion. RESULTS: The overall complication rate was 11% among patients with ascites (n = 11), compared with 10% in those without (n = 16; P = .834). No difference was found between the two groups in any one complication. The overall outcome of PCT drainage differed between groups, with significantly shorter survival times in patients with ascites. Patients with ascites underwent cholecystectomy less often than patients without ascites (21% vs 39%; P = .002). Likewise, patients with ascites were more likely than those without ascites to die with the PCT in place (49% vs 25%; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Frequencies of complications following PCT insertion were similar in patients with and without ascites. Additionally, the overall complication rate was low and not significantly different between the two groups. These observations support the use of PCT placement in patients with ascites.

Early Percutaneous Cholecystostomy in Severe Acute Cholecystitis Reduces the Complication Rate and Duration of Hospital Stay.

The optimal timing of percutaneous cholecystostomy for severe acute cholecystitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the timing of percutaneous cholecystostomy and its relationship to clinical outcomes in patients with inoperable acute severe cholecystitis.From 2008 to 2010, 209 consecutive patients who were admitted to our hospital due to acute cholecystitis and were treated by percutaneous cholecystostomy were retrospectively reviewed. The time periods from symptom onset to when percutaneous cholecystostomy was performed and when patients were discharged were recorded.In the 209 patients, the median time period between symptom onset and percutaneous cholecystostomy was 23 hours (range, 3-95 hours). The early intervention group (≤24 hours, n = 109) had a significantly lower procedure-related bleeding rate (0.0% vs 5.0%, P = 0.018) and shorter hospital stay (15.8 ±â€Š12.9 vs 21.0 ±â€Š17.5 days) as compared with the late intervention group (>24 hours, n = 100). Delayed percutaneous cholecystostomy was a significant independent factor for a longer hospital stay (odds ratio 3.03, P = 0.001).In inoperable patients with acute severe cholecystitis, early percutaneous cholecystostomy reduced hospital stay and procedure-related bleeding without increasing the mortality rate.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy is an effective treatment option for acute calculous cholecystitis: a 10-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) can be used to treat patients with acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) who are considered to be unfit for surgery. However, this procedure has been insufficiently investigated. This paper presents the results of a 10-year experience with this treatment modality. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of all consecutive patients treated with PC for ACC in the period from 1 May 2002 to 30 April 2012 was conducted. All data were collected from patients' medical records. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients were treated with PC for ACC. Of these, 13 (4.7%) died within 30 days, 28 (10.1%) underwent early laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three (1.1%) patients were lost from follow-up. Of the remaining 234 patients, 55 (23.5%) were readmitted for the recurrence of cholecystitis. In 128 (54.7%) patients, PC was the definitive treatment (median follow-up time: 5 years), whereas 51 (21.8%) patients were treated with elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The frequency of recurrence of cholecystitis in patients with contrast passage to the duodenum on cholangiography was lower than that in patients without contrast passage (21.1% versus 36.7%; P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: The present study, which is the largest ever conducted in this treatment area, supports the hypothesis that PC is an effective treatment modality for critically ill patients with ACC unfit for surgery and results in a low rate of 30-day mortality.

Cholecystostomy offers no survival benefit in patients with acute acalculous cholecystitis and severe sepsis and shock.

BACKGROUND: Acute acalculous cholecystitis is often managed with cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy, but data guiding surgical practice are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Longitudinal analysis of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Data was performed from 1995-2009. Patients with acute acalculous cholecystitis were identified by International Classification of Diseases 9 code. Cox proportional hazard analysis found predictors of time to death, adjusting for patient demographics, sepsis, shock, frailty, Charlson comorbidity index, length of stay, insurance status, teaching hospital status, and year. RESULTS: Of 43,341 patients, 63.5% received a cholecystectomy, 2.8% received a cholecystostomy, and 1.2% received both. Overall, 30.4% of patients died, with higher mortality among patients with cholecystostomy (61.7%) or no procedure (42.0%) than cholecystectomy (23.0%). In patients with severe sepsis and shock, there was no difference in survival of patients with cholecystostomy versus no intervention (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, P = 0.256), although patients with cholecystectomy (with or without prior cholecystostomy) had improved survival (HR 0.29, P < 0.001; HR 0.56, P < 0.001). Results were similar among patients on the ventilator >96 h. CONCLUSIONS: Although cholecystostomy offered no survival benefit for patients with severe sepsis and shock, cholecystectomy offered improved survival compared with patients without surgical management. Cholecystostomy may not benefit the sickest patients in whom cholecystectomy may never be considered.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy: single centre experience in 111 patients with an acute cholecystitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and long-term outcome of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) under radiologic guidance for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) and acute acalculous cholecystitis (AAC) in all patients undergoing that procedure at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 111 patients who underwent PC from 2004 to 2012. Patients were divided into two groups: AAC and ACC. For all patients, comorbidity and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification were determined. The indications, complications, recurrence rate and long-term outcome for both groups were analysed. The mean follow-up was 55 months. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with AAC and 87 patients with ACC underwent PC. The most common sonographic findings of ACC and AAC were gallbladder wall thickening (90.9%) and hydrops (72.9%). Twelve of 24 patients with AAC (50%) were hospitalized at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Overall, the procedure failed in 2 (1.8%) patients. There were 4 (3.6%) abscesses and 2 (1.8%) fistulas post PC. Drain dislodgment was found without sequelae in 8 (7.2%) patients. Elective cholecystectomy was performed in 35/111 (31.5%). Fifty-one of 87 (58.6%) patients with gallstones underwent cholecystectomy; 36/87 (41.3%) did not undergo surgery due to a too short follow-up or death of nonbiliary disease. In the AAC group, there was no recurrent cholecystitis in 17/24 (70.8%) patients; 3/24 (12.5%) underwent surgery and 4/24 (16.6%) patients died in the ICU. CONCLUSION: PC is a minimally invasive treatment with low complication rate for patients with acute cholecystitis whom considered being at high-risk for urgent cholecystectomy. Good selection (ASA III and IV) and indication is needed in patients with ACC before PC because the majority will be operated later on. AAC can be managed nonoperatively and further treatment might not be needed.

Management of acute cholecystitis: prevalence of percutaneous cholecystostomy and delayed cholecystectomy in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Published guidelines recommend early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in the elderly. Alternatively, percutaneous cholecystostomy can be used in compromised patients. METHODS: We reviewed 806 elderly patients diagnosed with biliary disease retrospectively identified through billing and diagnosis codes. Two hundred sixty-five patients with histologically documented acute cholecystitis were selected. RESULTS: Initially, 75 patients had percutaneous cholecystostomy (Group 1), 64 (24 % underwent interval cholecystectomy, 74 (28 %) early (Group 2), and 127 (48 %) delayed cholecystectomy (Group 3). Group 1 was more likely to have American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of 4 when compared to those in Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.04). No difference existed among the groups when patients with an ASA of 4 were excluded: conversion rates (11 %), biliary leak, bowel injury, need for reoperation, or 30 days mortality. Patients in Group 1 and in Group 3 were five times (p = 0.04) and four times (p = 0.06) more likely, respectively, than those in Group 2 to have recurrent episodes of pancreatitis, cholecystitis, and cholangitis. CONCLUSION: Patients were more likely to have delayed cholecystectomy after initial antibiotic therapy or cholecystostomy without the benefit of a lower conversion rate when compared to the early group, but they had higher recurrent episodes of cholecystitis/pancreatitis or cholangitis.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy for high-risk surgical patients with acute calculous cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: The management of people at high risk of perioperative death due to their general condition (high-risk surgical patients) with acute calculous cholecystitis is controversial, with no clear guidelines. In particular, the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in these patients has not been defined. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits (temporary or permanent relief of symptoms) and harms (recurrence of symptoms, procedure-related morbidity) of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the management of high-risk individuals with symptomatic gallstones. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2012 to identify the randomised clinical trials. We also handsearched the references lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) addressing this issue. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors collected data independently. For each outcome, we calculated the P values using Fisher's exact test or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials with 156 participants for this review. The comparisons included in these two trials were percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1 trial; 70 participants) and percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment (1 trial; 86 participants). Both trials had high risk of bias. Percutaneous cholecystostomy with early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy: There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (0/37 versus 1/33; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.47). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (1/31 versus 2/30; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.61). This trial did not report on quality of life. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants requiring conversion to open cholecystectomy between the two intervention groups (2/31 percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 4/30 delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.43). The mean total hospital stay was significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -9.90 days; 95% CI -12.31 to -7.49). The mean total costs were significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -1123.00 USD; 95% CI -1336.60 to -909.40). Percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment: Nine of the 44 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Seven of the 42 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the conservative treatment group. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 7/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.77). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 3/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.49). The number of participants who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy was not reported in this trial. Therefore, we were unable to calculate the proportion of participants who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy. The other outcomes, total hospital stay, quality of life, and total costs, were not reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current available evidence from randomised clinical trials, we are unable to determine the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the clinical management of high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. There is a need for adequately powered randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias on this issue.

Clinical outcomes of a percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis: a multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to review a series of consecutive percutaneous cholecystostomies (PC) to analyse the clinical outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent a PC between 2000 and 2010 were reviewed retrospectively for indications, complications, and short- and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent a PC with a median age was 74 years (range 14-93). 92.4% (n = 49) of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III and IV. 82% (43/53) had ultrasound-guided drainage whereas 18% (10/53) had computed tomography (CT)-guided drainage. 71.6% (n = 38) of PC's employed a transhepatic route and 28.4% (n = 15) transabdominal route. 13% (7/53) of patients developed complications including bile leaks (n = 5), haemorrhage (n = 1) and a duodenal fistula (n = 1). All bile leaks were noted with transabdominal access (5 versus 0, P = 0.001). 18/53 of patients underwent a cholecystectomy of 4/18 was done on the index admission. 6/18 cholecystectomies (33%) underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the remaining required conversion to an open cholecystectomy (67%). 13/53 (22%) patients were readmitted with recurrent cholecystitis during follow-up of which 7 (54%) had a repeated PC. 12/53 patients died on the index admission. The overall 1-year mortality was 37.7% (20/53). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small fraction of patients undergoing a PC proceed to a cholecystectomy with a high risk of conversion to an open procedure. A quarter of patients presented with recurrent cholecystitis during follow-up. The mortality rate is high during the index admission from sepsis and within the 1 year of follow-up from other causes.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy is a definitive treatment for acute cholecystitis in elderly high-risk patients.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is an alternative treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC) in elderly patients with high surgical risk and has lower morbidity and mortality than emergency cholecystectomy. There is controversy about whether cholecystectomy should be performed after PC in elderly high-risk patients. Medical records of patients with AC admitted to the Department of Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, China, between January 2004 and July 2009 were reviewed retrospectively. The elderly high-risk patients with AC who underwent PC were selected for further study. The safety, efficacy, and long-term outcome of PC without cholecystectomy were evaluated in these patients. The symptoms of AC resolved in 98.6 per cent of patients; drainage-related morbidity and mortality rates were 4.1 and 1.4 per cent, respectively. No patient underwent cholecystectomy after PC. The recurrence rate of cholecystitis was 4.1 per cent. The one-year survival rate was 82.2 per cent, and the three-year survival rate was 39.7 per cent. No death was related to cholecystitis, but one patient died of septic shock on the second day after PC. Considering limited survival and a low recurrence rate of cholecystitis in elderly high-risk patients with AC, we propose that PC is a definitive treatment and cholecystectomy is not necessary after resolution of AC symptoms.

Outcome after percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cholecystostomy is an alternative treatment for acute cholecystitis patients with high surgical risk. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-six patients consecutively treated by percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in a single medical center were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: The cohort included 121 males and 45 females with mean age of 75.9 years. The overall inhospital mortality rate was 15.1 % (n = 25). Elevated serum creatinine level at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 1.497; p = 0.020], septic shock (OR 11.755; p = 0.001), and development of cholecystitis during admission (OR 7.256; p = 0.007) were predictive of inhospital mortality. Of 126 patients who recovered from calculous cholecystitis, 11 experienced recurrent cholecystitis within 2 months. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level >15 mg dl(-1) at diagnosis [hazard ratio (HR) 10.141; p = 0.027] and drainage duration of cholecystostomy longer than 2 weeks (HR 3.638; p = 0.039) were independent risk factors of early recurrence. The 53 patients who underwent cholecystectomy had an 18.9 % perioperative complication rate and no operation-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In-patients or those with septic shock or renal insufficiency have worse outcome. Prolonged drainage duration and high CRP level predict early recurrence. Removal of the drainage tube is recommended after resolution of the acute illness.

Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHOCOLATE trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. High risk patients, defined as APACHE-II score 7-14, with acute calculous cholecystitis will be randomised to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. During a two year period 284 patients will be enrolled from 30 high volume teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of major complications within three months following randomization and need for re-intervention and mortality during the follow-up period of one year. Secondary endpoints include all other complications, duration of hospital admission, difficulty of procedures and total costs. DISCUSSION: The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2666.

Acute cholecystitis in high surgical risk patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy or emergency cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) is an alternative treatment in acute cholecystitis (AC) in high-risk or elderly patients although its advantage over emergency cholecystectomy has not yet been established. STUDY DESIGN: AC prospective database analysis in high-risk patients treated by PC (group 1, 29 patients) or emergency cholecystectomy (group 2, 32 patients). Surgical risk was estimated by physiological POSSUM, Charlson, Apache II, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. RESULTS: The groups showed homogeneity concerning age and surgical risk. PC allowed AC resolution in 19 patients (70.4%), but 8 (29.6%) needed emergency cholecystectomy. Morbidity and mortality rates were 31% and 17.2%, respectively. Mortality was significantly associated with ASA IV (P = .01). In group 2, the morbidity rate was 28.1% without mortality. There was no statistical difference in morbidity (P = .6) although mortality was significantly higher in group 1 (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: PC seems of little benefit and ought to be left for those very old patients with surgical contraindication.

Percutaneous drainage versus emergency cholecystectomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in critically ill patients: does it matter?

BACKGROUND: The aim if this study was to compare percutaneous drainage (PD) of the gallbladder to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) in a well-defined patient group with sepsis related to acute calculous/acalculous cholecystitis (ACC/AAC). METHODS: Between 2001 and 2007, all consecutive patients of our ICU treated by either PD or EC were retrospectively analyzed. Cases were collected from a prospective database. Percutaneous drainage was performed by a transhepatic route and EC by open or laparoscopic approach. Patients' general condition and organ dysfunction were assessed by two validated scoring systems (SAPS II and SOFA, respectively). Morbidity, mortality, and long-term outcome were systematically reviewed and analyzed in both groups. RESULTS: Forty-two patients [median age = 65.5 years (range = 32-94)] were included; 45% underwent EC (ten laparoscopic, nine open) and 55% PD (n = 23). Both patient groups had similar preoperative characteristics. Percutaneous drainage and EC were successful in 91 and 100% of patients, respectively. Organ dysfunctions were similarly improved by the third postoperative/postdrainage days. Despite undergoing PD, two patients required EC due to gangrenous cholecystitis. The conversion rate after laparoscopy was 20%. Overall morbidity was 8.7% after PD and 47% after EC (P = 0.011). Major morbidity was 0% after PD and 21% after EC (P = 0.034). The mortality rate was not different (13% after PD and 16% after EC, P = 1.0) and the deaths were all related to the patients' preexisting disease. Hospital and ICU stays were not different. Recurrent symptoms (17%) occurred only after ACC in the PD group. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, PD and EC are both efficient in the resolution of acute cholecystitis sepsis. However, EC is associated with a higher procedure-related morbidity and the laparoscopic approach is not always possible. Percutaneous drainage represents a valuable intervention, but secondary cholecystectomy is mandatory in cases of acute calculous cholecystitis.

Colecistostomía percutánea en colecistitis aguda / Percutaneous cholecystostomy in acute cholecystitis

Antecedentes: La colecistostomía percutánea (CP) en pacientes de alto riesgo quirúrgico. Objetivo: Comunicar la experiencia con este procedimiento en los últimos 10 años. Lugar de aplicación: Centro de referencia de nivel terciario. Diseño: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de base prospectiva. Población: 95% CP consecutivas en el período 1997-2007. Método: Los pacientes con CA y riesgo quirúrgico aumentado fueron estratificados en 4 grupos: estado crítico, comorbilidades crónicas, colecistitis por-intervenciones biliares (endoscópica o percutánea) y embarazo en primer o tercer trimestre. Resultados: Se trataron 95 pacientes, 75% varones, con edad promedio de 62,6 +- 15,2 años (r 26-95). Hubo 44 (46,3%) pacientes en estado crítico, 36 (37,9%) con comorbilidades crónicas, 13 (13,6%) pos-intervenciones biliares y 2 (2,1%) embarazos. El 40% fueron colecistitis alitiásicas. Se utilizó la técnica de Seldinger en el 59% y de punción trocar en el 41%; 74% fueron accesos transhepáticos. La CP fue exitosa en 91 pacientes (95,8%) y fracasó en 4: 2 por falla técnica (3,1%) y 2 por falta de respuesta clínica (3,1%); todos ellos fueron operados. S presentaron 10 (10,5%) complicaciones mayores. La mortalidad intrahospitalaria fue del 23%, sin muertes atribuibles al procedimiento o sepsis biliar. Conclusión: La CP es un procedimiento seguro y efectivo en los pacientes con alto riesgo y CA.