title: A nationwide examination of outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy compared with cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, 1998-2010.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Improvements in percutaneous drainage techniques combined with the recognized advantages of avoiding surgery in critically ill patients have rendered cholecystostomy an attractive treatment option, particularly in those patients with acute acalculus cholecystitis. However, robust data to guide surgeons in choosing cholecystostomy versus cholecystectomy have been lacking.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 1998-2010 was performed. Patients identified as having acute cholecystitis (calculus and acalculus) were identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes and further classified as having undergone cholecystostomy or cholecystectomy. Patients with both procedures were included in the cholecystectomy group. Patients with neither procedure and those younger than age 18 years were excluded. Multivariate analyses examined mortality, length of stay, total charges, gallbladder/gastrointestinal complications, or any complication. Results were adjusted for age, race, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and teaching-hospital status. Subset analyses were performed among patients who survived and patients who died.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 248,229 calculus and 58,518 acalculus acute cholecystitis patients were analyzed. On unadjusted analysis, mortality, length of stay, and total charges were higher, but complication rates were lower, in patients with a cholecystostomy. Adjusted analysis showed lower odds of complications [calculus: odds ratio (OR) 0.3, p < 0.001; acalculus: OR 0.4, p < 0.001] but higher odds of mortality, total charges, and LOS (calculus: mortality OR 5.2, p < 0.001, $29,113, p < 0.001, +5.1 days, p < 0.001; acalculus: mortality OR 3.7, p < 0.001; $43,771, p < 0.001, +6.2 days, p < 0.001) among patients who received cholecystostomy. Results were similar in subset analyses.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Patients receiving cholecystostomy were more likely to be older and have more comorbidities. Among patients with calculus or acalculus cholecystitis, patients with cholecystostomy had decreased complication rates compared with patients with cholecystectomy. However, patients who received cholecystostomy had increased odds of death, longer length of stay, and higher total charges.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University of California, 200 W. Arbor Drive #8400, San Diego, CA 92103, USA. jaa002@ucsd.edu
authors.forename: Jamie E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Anderson
authors.forename: David C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Chang
authors.forename: Mark A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Talamini
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D002763:Cholecystectomy / Q000379:methods*; D041881:Cholecystitis, Acute / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000601:surgery*; D002767:Cholecystostomy / Q000379:methods*; D004322:Drainage; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D015996:Survival Rate; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD008318
references.pmid: 20091665
references.citation: Arch Surg. 2003 May;138(5):531-5; discussion 535-6
references.pmid: 12742958
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2011 Nov;25(11):3642-6
references.pmid: 21638173
references.citation: J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Mar;46(3):216-9
references.pmid: 21814147
references.citation: HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(2):131-4
references.pmid: 18333128
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Oct;46(10):1075-9; discussion 1081-90
references.pmid: 8410092
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2002 Jul;12(7):1778-84
references.pmid: 12111069
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2001 Jul;15(7):700-5
references.pmid: 11591971
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2003 Aug;197(2):206-11
references.pmid: 12892798
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2000 Apr;14(4):358-61
references.pmid: 10790555
references.citation: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2005 Aug;15(4):379-82
references.pmid: 16108740
references.citation: Arch Surg. 2010 Aug;145(8):785-7
references.pmid: 20713933
references.citation: Int J Surg. 2011;9(6):456-9
references.pmid: 21679779
references.citation: Br J Surg. 2012 Sep;99(9):1254-61
references.pmid: 22829411
references.citation: HPB (Oxford). 2009 May;11(3):183-93
references.pmid: 19590646
references.citation: Arch Surg. 2012 May;147(5):416-22
references.pmid: 22785633
references.citation: J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
references.pmid: 3558716
references.citation: World J Surg. 2011 Apr;35(4):826-33
references.pmid: 21318431
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 2012 May;26(5):1343-51
references.pmid: 22089258
references.citation: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004 Sep;48(8):986-91
references.pmid: 15315616
references.citation: J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003 Feb;36(2):166-9
references.pmid: 12544202
references.citation: Am Surg. 1998 May;64(5):471-5
references.pmid: 9585788