INTRODUCTION: Of people admitted to hospital for biliary tract disease, 20% have acute cholecystitis. Up to the age of 50 years, acute calculous cholecystitis is three times more common in women than in men, and about one and a half times more common in women than in men thereafter. About 95% of people with acute cholecystitis have gallstones. Optimal therapy for acute cholecystitis, based on timing and severity of presentation, remains controversial. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute cholecystitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: early cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, observation alone, open cholecystectomy, and percutaneous cholecystostomy.

INTRODUCTION: Of people admitted to hospital for biliary tract disease, 20% have acute cholecystitis. Up to the age of 50 years, acute calculous cholecystitis is three times more common in women than in men, and about 1.5 times more common in women than in men thereafter. About 95% of people with acute cholecystitis have gallstones. Optimal therapy for acute cholecystitis, based on timing and severity of presentation, remains controversial. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute cholecystitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 17 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: early cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy, observation alone, open cholecystectomy, and percutaneous cholecystostomy.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of acute cholecystitis has been controversially discussed in the literature as there are no high-evidence-level data yet for determining the optimal point in time for surgical intervention. So far, the laparoscopic removal of the gallbladder within 72 h has been the most preferred approach in acute cholecystitis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by including randomized trials of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. RESULTS: Based on a few prospective studies and two meta-analyses, there was consent to prefer an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis while the term 'early' has not been consistently defined yet. So far, there is new level 1b evidence brought forth by the so-called 'ACDC' study which has convincingly shown in a prospective randomized setting that immediate laparoscopic cholecystectomy - within a time frame of 24 h after hospital admission - is the smartest approach in ASA I-III patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis compared to a more conservative approach with a delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy after an initial antibiotic treatment in terms of morbidity, length of hospital stay, and overall treatment costs. Concerning critically ill patients suffering from acute calculous or acalculous cholecystitis, there is no consensus in treatment due to missing data in the literature. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis within 24 h after hospital admission is a safe procedure and should be the preferred treatment for ASA I-III patients. In critically ill patients, the intervention should be determined by a narrow interdisciplinary consent based on the patient's individual comorbidities.

CONTEXT: Although few patients with acute abdominal pain will prove to have cholecystitis, ruling in or ruling out acute cholecystitis consumes substantial diagnostic resources. OBJECTIVE: To determine if aspects of the history and physical examination or basic laboratory testing clearly identify patients who require diagnostic imaging tests to rule in or rule out the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of the Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library, and English-language articles from January 1966 through November 2000 indexed in MEDLINE. We also hand-searched Index Medicus for 1950-1965, and scanned references in identified articles and bibliographies of prominent textbooks of physical examination, surgery, and gastroenterology. To identify relevant articles appearing since the comprehensive search, we repeated the MEDLINE search in July 2002. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies evaluated the role of the history, physical examination, and/or laboratory tests in adults with abdominal pain or suspected acute cholecystitis. Studies had to report data from a control group found not to have acute cholecystitis. Acceptable definitions of cholecystitis included surgery, pathologic examination, hepatic iminodiacetic acid scan or right upper quadrant ultrasound, or clinical course consistent with acute cholecystitis and no evidence for an alternate diagnosis. Studies of acalculous cholecystitis were included. Seventeen of 195 identified studies met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently abstracted data from the 17 included studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. DATA SYNTHESIS: No clinical or laboratory finding had a sufficiently high positive likelihood ratio (LR) or low negative LR to rule in or rule out the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Possible exceptions were the Murphy sign (positive LR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8-8.6) and right upper quadrant tenderness (negative LR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1), though the 95% CIs for both included 1.0. Available data on diagnostic confirmation rates at laparotomy and test characteristics of relevant radiological investigations suggest that the diagnostic impression of acute cholecystitis has a positive LR of 25 to 30. Unfortunately, the available literature does not identify the specific combinations of clinical and laboratory findings that presumably account for this diagnostic success. CONCLUSIONS: No single clinical finding or laboratory test carries sufficient weight to establish or exclude cholecystitis without further testing (eg, right upper quadrant ultrasound). Combinations of certain symptoms, signs, and laboratory results likely have more useful LRs, and presumably inform the diagnostic impressions of experienced clinicians. Pending further research characterizing the pretest probabilities associated with different clinical presentations, the evaluation of patients with abdominal pain suggestive of cholecystitis will continue to rely heavily on the clinical gestalt and diagnostic imaging.

BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis occurs in approximately 1 % of patients with known gallstones. It presents as a surgical emergency and usually requires hospitalisation for treatment. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Cholecystectomy is advocated for acute cholecystitis; however, the timing of cholecystectomy and the value of the additional treatments have been a matter of debate. This review examines the available evidence regarding the optimal surgical management of patients with acute cholecystitis. METHODS: A literature search was performed on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, databases for English language publications. The MeSH headings 'cholecystitis', 'acute', 'gallbladder', 'inflammation', 'surgery', 'cholecystectomy', 'laparoscopic', 'robotic', 'telerobotic' and 'computer-assisted' were used. RESULTS: Data from eight randomised controlled trails and three population-based analyses show that early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis performed on the index admission is safe and not associated with increased conversion rates or morbidity in comparison to conservative treatment followed by elective cholecystectomy. Delaying cholecystectomy increases readmissions for gallstone-related events, complications, hospital stay and mortality in the elderly. Early cholecystectomy is also more cost-effective. Randomised trials addressing antibiotic use in acute cholecystitis suggest that antibiotics should be stopped on the day of cholecystectomy. Insufficient trials have been performed to address the optimal analgesia regime post cholecystectomy. Similarly, a lack of trials on intraoperative cholangiography and management of common bile duct stones in patients with acute cholecystitis means that treatment of concomitant bile duct stones should be based on institutional expertise and resource availability. As regards acute cholecystitis in elderly and high-risk patients, case series and retrospective studies would suggest that cholecystectomy is more effective and of lower mortality than percutaneous cholecystostomy. There is not enough evidence to support the routine use of robotic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy or natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. CONCLUSIONS: Trial evidence would favour a policy of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy following admission with acute cholecystitis. The optimal approach to support early cholecystectomy is suggested but requires evidence from further randomised trials.

Resumen del CRD: La revisión evaluó qué aspectos de la historia clínica del paciente y el examen físico o pruebas básicas de laboratorio son útiles en el diagnóstico de colecistitis aguda. Los autores concluyeron que no hay un hallazgo clínico único o prueba de laboratorio confiable que pueda establecer o excluir la colecistitis aguda sin ninguna otra prueba. Aunque sólo se incluyeron en la revisión los estudios del idioma inglés , esta conclusión parece estar apoyada por la evidencia presentada

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.

Resumen Introducción: La colecistitis hemorrágica es una complicación poco frecuente de la colecistitis aguda con una alta mortalidad. Materiales y Método: Paciente con dolor abdominal en hipocondrio derecho e ictericia. Los exámenes de laboratorio y ultrasonido hepatobiliar mostraron datos sugestivos de colecistitis aguda; durante su estancia hospitalaria presenta deterioro de su estado general, realizándose tomografía computarizada mostrando imágenes sugestivas de colecistitis hemorrágica y hemoperitoneo. Resultados: Laparotomía de urgencia, corroborando los hallazgos tomográficos y resolviéndose satisfactoriamente con la colecistectomía. Discusión: El diagnóstico de colecistitis hemorrágica es difícil ya que sus manifestaciones clínicas de inicio no difieren de la colecistitis aguda, por lo que la sospecha clínica y el adecuado estudio de imagen son importantes para su detección. Conclusión: A pesar que la colecistitis hemorrágica con perforación y hemoperitoneo es una patología muy poco común, de diagnóstico confuso, es importante establecer la realización de una tomografía computarizada abdominal con contraste endovenoso en pacientes con sospecha de colecistitis aguda grave.

Early cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis may not be possible in some clinical settings. Percutaneous gallbladder aspiration (PGBA) offers an alternative approach, but the benefits and risks of this procedure are unclear. We synthesized data on the outcomes of PGBA in acute cholecystitis patients using data sources from online databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, and bibliographies of included studies from January 2000 through December 2015. Two reviewers independently reviewed and critiqued the quality of each study. Seven eligible studies met our criteria. The success rates in single PGBA and repetitive PGBA (2-4 times) were 50% to 93% and 76% to 96%, respectively. Complication rates were 0% to 8% and were unrelated to the size of needle gauge used for aspiration and the number of aspirations. Salvage percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) and urgent surgery were required in 0% to 43% of patients and 0% to 4% of patients, respectively. Two studies with antibiotic instillation had clinical success rates of 95% and 96%. In conclusion, repetitive PGBA combined with antibiotic instillation and salvage PC are useful alternatives to early cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare early with delayed cholecystectomy for the treatment of acute lithiasic cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. METHODS: Pertinent studies were selected from the Medline, Embase, Cancerlit, HealthSTAR and Cochrane Library Databases, references from published articles, and reviews. Twelve prospective randomized trials (9 addressing open cholecystectomy and 3 laparoscopic cholecystectomy) were selected. Conventional meta-analysis according to the DerSimonian and Laird method was used for the pooling of the results. The rate difference (RD) (95% CI) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were used as a measure of the therapeutic effect. RESULTS: Cumulative operative and perioperative mortality and morbidity were 0.9% and 17.8%, respectively, for open cholecystectomy and 0% and 13.1%, respectively, for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The pooled RD for operative complications in early surgery was 1.37% (95% CI =-3.78% to 6.53%; p= 0.2) for open cholecystectomy and 3.11% (95% CI =-15.10% to 8.87%; p= 0.6) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In laparoscopic cholecystectomy the cumulative conversion rate to open cholecystectomy was 21.5%. The pooled RD for conversion rate in early laparoscopic cholecystectomy was -7.99% (95% CI =-18.46% to 2.47%; p= 0.1; NNT = 13). Total hospital stay (mean +/- SD) was significantly shorter in the early surgery group (9.6 +/- 2.5 days vs 17.8 +/- 5.8 days; p < 0.0001). More than 20% of patients referred to delayed surgery fail to respond to conservative management or suffer recurrent cholecystitis in the interval period. CONCLUSIONS: Early operation (open or laparoscopic) does not carry a higher risk of mortality and morbidity compared to delayed operation and should be the preferred surgical approach for patients with acute lithiasic cholecystitis.