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

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.

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.

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.

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) addressing this issue.

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).

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.

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.