Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DOI 10.1007/s00534-012-0566-y
GUIDELINE
Abstract In 2007, the Tokyo Guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis (TG07) were
first published in the Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic
Surgery. The fundamental policy of TG07 was to achieve
the objectives of TG07 through the development of consensus among specialists in this field throughout the world.
Considering such a situation, validation and feedback from
the clinicians viewpoints were indispensable. What had
been pointed out from clinical practice was the low diagnostic sensitivity of TG07 for acute cholangitis and the
D. J. Gouma
Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
S. M. Strasberg
Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Washington
University in Saint Louis School of Medicine, Saint Louis,
MO, USA
J. S. Solomkin
Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of
Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
H. A. Pitt
Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, IN, USA
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Tochigi, Japan
M. Yoshida
Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International
University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
T. Mayumi
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine,
Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
O. J. Garden
Clinical Surgery, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
M. W. Buchler
Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany
S. Kiriyama
Department of Gastroenterology, Ogaki Municipal Hospital,
Ogaki, Japan
M. Yokoe
General Internal Medicine, Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital,
Nagoya, Japan
Y. Kimura
Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastroenterological
Surgery, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine,
Sapporo, Japan
T. Tsuyuguchi
Department of Medicine and Clinical Oncology, Graduate
School of Medicine Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
123
T. Itoi
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo
Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
A. N. Supe
Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Seth G S Medical
College and K E M Hospital, Mumbai, India
T. Gabata
Department of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate
School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan
S. Lee
HepatoBiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Asan Medical
Center, Ulsan University, Seoul, Korea
R. Higuchi
Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo
Womens Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
X.-P. Chen
Department of Surgery, Hepatic Surgery Centre,
Tongji Hospital, Tongi Medical College,
Huazhong Universty of Science & Technology,
Wuhan, China
K. Okamoto
Department of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Yahata Hospital,
Kitakyushu, Japan
J. Hata
Department of Endoscopy and Ultrasound, Kawasaki Medical
School, Okayama, Japan
A. Murata
Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health,
School of Medicine, University of Occupational and
Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan
S. Kusachi
Department of Surgery, Toho University Medical Center Ohashi
Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
J. A. Windsor
Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand
123
Y. Yamashita
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
K. Hirata
Department of Internal Medicine, Second Teaching Hospital,
Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Nagoya, Aichi,
Japan
K. Inui
Department of Surgery I, Sapporo Medical University Hospital,
Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
Y. Sumiyama
Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
3
Table 1 Summary of citations of TG07 (from January 2007 to
December 2011)
Number of papers in TG07 cited at least once
14
209
122
77
6.5
33.8
11.7
14.3
1.6
1.6
11.5
32.8
23.8
28.7
123
No. of articles
Original article
76 (62.3 %)
Review
20 (16.4 %)
Case report
11 (9.0 %)
Guideline
7 (5.7 %)
Others
8 (6.6 %)
Total
122
Publication and
distribution
assessment
Use Guidelines
Fig. 6 Evidencepractice cycle
123
the quality of the study was re-assessed based on the limitations and the body of evidence was re-classified as
moderate evidence. Observational studies (a non-randomized study, a cohort study, or a casecontrol study) are
classified as having low-level evidence in general. The
body of evidence may be upgraded to high level if it has
significant influences in clinical practice. Case series or
case reports are classified as having very low evidence, in
general. It is extremely rare that the body of evidence is
re-classified to a higher level. However, reports of cases of
deaths due to complications or cases of significant side
effects may be considered as a higher level.
The strength of recommendations was classified as
high (strong) (recommendation 1) and low (weak)
(recommendation 2). Four factors that determine the
strength of recommendations are: (1) the quality of evidence; (2) sense of value and patients preference (less
burden on staff members and patients); (3) net profits and
cost/source (cost saving); and (4) benefits and harm burden
(benefits and risks). The general decision was made by
taking into account these four factors. Strong and weak
recommendations were then determined by the Tokyo
Guidelines Revision Committee. A strong recommendation
suggests that desirable effects clearly exceed undesirable
effects and is applied to recommendations on which more
than 70 % of the members of the Tokyo Guidelines
Revision Committee have agreed. The use of We recommend has been adopted for the style of the
expression. A weak recommendation shows that desirable
effects probably exceed undesirable effects and the use of
We suggest has been adopted.
The recommendation 1 level A (strong recommendation; evidence level high), 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D
(weak recommendation; evidence level very low) are
shown at the end of recommendations. However, cases
with strong recommendation (recommendation 1) may
include those cases for which to perform is strongly
recommended and those for which not to perform is
strongly recommended.
123
Initial quality of
evidence
Study design
Lower if
Higher if
High
Study limitations:
1 Serious
2 Very serious
Inconsistency:
1 Serious
2 Very serious
Observational
Indirectness:
study
1 Serious
(cohort study, case 2 Very serious
control study
Impression:
1 Serious
Any other
2 Very serious
evidence
Publication bias
(case series, case
study)
1 likely
2 Very likely
RCT, systematic
review, metaanalysis
Moderate
Low
Very low
Magnitude of effect:
2 Very strong
1 Strong
Dose-response
gradient
1
All plausible
confounders would
have reduced the
effect
1
High
Summary
This paper presents the background of TG07, its clinical
impact since publication, the clinical appraisal emerging
from clinical research, the process of revision of TG07, and
the development of TG13. The guidelines need continuous
evaluation and revision. TG13 has been developed to
improve the quality of medical care for patients with acute
cholangitis and cholecystitis. The guidelines should be
widely utilized and prospective clinical studies are needed
for further improvement in the near future.
Conflict of interest
123
None.
level B
Moderate
level C
Low
level D
Very low
References
1. Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Yoshida M, Mayumi T,
Sekimoto M, et al. Background: Tokyo Guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:110.
2. Tokyo Guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and
cholecystitis. Proceedings of a consensus meeting, April 2006,
Tokyo, Japan. J Hepato-Biliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:1121.
3. Miura F, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Wada K, Hirota M,
et al. Flowcharts for the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:2734.
4. Wada K, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Miura F, Yoshida
M, et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute
cholangitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14:528.
5. Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Miura F, Hirata K,
et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14:7882.
6. Strasberg SM. Acute calculous cholecystitis. N Engl J Med.
2008;358:280411.
7. Cameron JL, Cameron AM. Current surgical therapy. 10th ed.
Elsevier Mosby: Philadelphia. 2011; p. 345348.
8. Dooley JS, Lok A, Burroughs A, Heathcote J. Sherlocks diseases
of the liver and biliary system, 12th ed. Blackwell: Hoboken;
2011.
9. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, Rodvold KA, Goldstein
EJ, Baron EJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated
intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by
the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society
of America. Clinical Infect Dis. 2010;50(2):13364.
10. Murata A, Matsuda S, Kuwabara K, Fujino Y, Kubo T, et al.
Evaluation of compliance with the Tokyo Guidelines for the
management of acute cholangitis based on the Japanese administrative database associated with the Diagnosis Procedure
Combination system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010;18:539.
11. Yokoe M, Takada T, Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Hasegawa H,
Norimizo S, et al. Accuracy of the Tokyo Guidelines for the
diagnosis of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis taking into
7
15. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S,
et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength
of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches.
The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;
4(1):38.
16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y,
Alonso-Coello P, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of
recommendations. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating
quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ.
2008;336:9246.
17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y,
Schunemann HJ, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of
recommendations. What is quality of evidence and why is it
important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:9958.
123
GUIDELINE
123
Terminology
Acute cholangitis
Definition
Pathophysiology
Introduction
Acute biliary infection comprises manifold disease concepts and is mostly separated into [1] acute cholangitis, a
systemic infectious disease that is occasionally life-threatening and requires immediate treatment, and [2] acute
cholecystitis, frequently presenting a mild clinical course.
The definition, pathophysiology, and epidemiology of
acute cholangitis are presented in the Tokyo Guidelines for
the management of acute cholangitis and chlecystitis 2007
(TG07) [1], while the updated Tokyo Guidelines (TG13)
present more subjective data acquired throughout the
revision of TG07. As for the data of current clinical trials in
particular, the data concerning frequency of severe cases,
J. Hata
Department of Endoscopy and Ultrasound, Kawasaki Medical
School, Okayama, Japan
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Tochigi, Japan
C. Dervenis
First Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens,
Greece
W.-Y. Lau
Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
G. Belli
General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy
M.-H. Kim
Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center,
University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea
S. C. Hilvano
Department of Surgery, College of Medicine-Philippine General
Hospital, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines
Y. Yamashita
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
123
10
Pathological classification
(1)
Acute cholecystitis
Definition
Acute inflammatory disease of the gallbladder, often
attributable to gallstones, but many factors, such as ischemia, motility disorders, direct chemical injury, infections
by microorganism, protozoon and parasites, collagen disease, and allergic reaction are also involved [1].
Pathophysiology
In the majority of patients, gallstones are the cause of
acute cholecystitis. The process is one of physical
obstruction of the gallbladder at the neck or in the cystic
duct by a gallstone. This obstruction results in increased
pressure in the gallbladder. There are two factors which
determine the progression to acute cholecystitisthe
degree of obstruction and the duration of the obstruction.
If the obstruction is partial and of short duration, the
patient experiences biliary colic. If the obstruction is
complete and of long duration, the patient develops acute
cholecystitis. If the patient does not receive early treatment, the disease becomes more serious and complications can occur [1].
123
(3)
(4)
11
(2)
(3)
(4)
Special forms of acute cholecystitis
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
123
12
c
d
GB
123
GB
13
Table 1 Natural history of asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and symptomatic cholelithiasis patients
References
Characteristic
No. of
cases
Average
follow-up
period (years)
No. of acute
cholecystitis
cases (%)
Only those
with remarkable
jaundice cases
(%)
Cholangitis
Cholecystitis
Gallbladder
cancer
Comfort
et al.
Asymptomatic
112
15
Lund
Asymptomatic
95
13
1(?)
Gracie
et al.
Asymptomatic
123
11
McSherry
et al.
Asymptomatic
135
Friedman
et al.
Asymptomatic
123
Thistle
et al.
Asymptomatic ?
symptomatic
305
C3
Wenckert
et al.
Mildly
symptomatic
781
11
81 (10.4)
\59a
\59a
Ralston
et al.
Mildly
symptomatic
116
22
Friedman
et al.
Mildly
symptomatic
344
20 (5.8)
10
Newman
et al.
Symptomatic
332
10
38(11.4)
McSherry
et al.
Symptomatic
556
47 (8.5)
19
In this report, 59 cases were diagnosed as jaundice and/or acute pancreatitis based on the serum bilirubin and amylase values
123
14
Etiology
Acute cholangitis
Q5. What are the etiology and mechanism of acute
cholangitis?
Severe in TG07 refers to acute cholecystitis accompanying organ dysfunction (grade III), and the proportion
of the above cases was 6.0 % (14 of 235 cases) [21].
Acute cholangitis and cholecystitis as complications
following ERCP
Q4. What is the proportion of acute cholangitis and
cholecystitis following ERCP?
123
Benign biliarystricture
Congenital factors
Post-operative factors (damaged bile duct, strictured
choledojejunostomy, etc.)
Inflammatory factors (oriental cholangitis, etc.)
Malignant occlusion
Bile duct tumor
Gallbladder tumor
Ampullary tumor
Pancreatic tumor
Duodenal tumor
Pancreatitis
Entry of parasites into the bile ducts
External pressure
Fibrosis of the papilla
Duodenal diverticulum
Blood clot
Sump syndrome after biliary enteric anastomosis
Iatrogenic factors
Reviewed by Kimura et al. [1]
15
Acute cholecystitis
Years
Setting
Causes
Gallbladder
stones (%)
Benign
stenosis
(%)
Malignant
stenosis
(%)
Sclerosing
cholangitis
(%)
Others/
unknown
(%)
Gigot [39]
19631983
University Paris
412
48
28
11
1.5
19521974
76
70
13
17
19761978
40
70
18
10
19831985
48
32
14
30
24
Thompson [42]
19861989
96
28
12
57
Basoli [43]
19601985
University of Rome
80
69
16
13
Daida [44]
1979
472
56
36
Salek [45]
20002005
108
68
24
123
16
Table 4 Etiological
mechanism of gallbladder
diseases
Etiological mechanism
Drug/treatment
Progesterone, fibrate
Estrogen
Thiazides (unconfirmed)
Ceftriaxone
Octreotide
Narcoid
Anticholinergic drugs
Promoted hemolysis
Dapson
Immunological mechanism
123
Immunotherapy
17
123
18
Prognosis
Mortality
Q8. What is the mortality rate of acute cholangitis/
cholecystitis?
Period/year
Country
No. of cases
Mortality (%)
Andrew [79]
19571967
US
17c
64.71
Shimada [80]
19751981
Japan
42b
57.1
Csendes [81]
19801988
Chile
512
11.91
Himal [82]
19801989
Canada
61
18.03
Chijiiwa [83]
19801993
Japan
27
11.11
Liu [84]
19821987
Taiwan
47a
27.66
Lai [85]
19841988
Hong Kong
86b
19.77
Thompson [42]
19841988
USA
127
3.94
Arima [86]
19841992
Japan
163
2.45
Kunisaki [87]
19841994
Japan
82
10.98
Tai [88]
Thompson [89]
19861987
19861989
Taiwan
USA
225
96
6.67
5.21
Sharma [90]
20002004
India
75 (7Fr-NBD)
2.7
75 (7Fr stent)
2.7
Lee [91]
20012002
Taiwan
112 (bacteremia)
13.4
Rahman [92]
2005
UK
122
10
Pang [93]
20032004
Hong Kong
171
6.4
Agarwal [94]
20012005
India
175
2.9
Tsujino [95]
19942005
Japan
343 (38d)
5.3d
Rosing [96]
19952005
USA
117
Salek [45]
20002005
USA
108
24.1
Yeom [97]
20052007
Korea
181
0.5 (2d)
a
b
123
19
Period/year
Country
Subjects
No. of cases
Mortality (%)
4.49
Meyer [98]
19581964
USA
245
Ranasohoff [99]
19601981
USA
298
3.36
Gagic [100]
19661971
USA
93
9.68
Girald [101]
19701986
Canada
1691
0.65
Addison [102]
19711990
UK
236
4.66
Bedirli [103]
19911994
Turkey
368
2.72
Gharaibeh [104]
19941999
Jordan
204
Russo MW [105]
2004
USA
Papi [106]
2004
Meta
Giger [107]
Johansson [108]
2005
20022004
System. rev.
Sweden
262,411
0.6
Cholecystectomy
1009
0.9
LC
246
Cholecystectomy
35
0.260.6
0
LC
35
Al Salamah [109]
19972002
Saudi Arabia
LC
311
Gurusamy [110]
2006
Meta
Early operation
223
Delayed operation
228
1408
202
152,202
Borzellino [111]
2008
Meta
Lee [112]
20052006
USA
Csikesz [113]
20002005
USA
Lee [21]
20072008
Taiwan
Gurusamy [114]
2010
Meta
Cholecystectomy
LC
Sekimoto [115]
859,747
0.4
235
1.7
Early operation
223
Delayed operation
228
20042005
Japan
738 (512)
0.9 (0.2)
20062007
Japan
3,858 (1,897)
1.9 (0.4)
20082009
Japan
8,026 (5,158)
2.9 (0.5)
Recurrence
Recurrence rate of acute cholecystitis
Q9. What is the recurrence rate for cases having
undergone
conservative
treatment
for
acute
cholecystitis?
The recurrence rate for cases needed emergent hospitalization
after having undergone conservative treatment or waiting for
cholecystectomy was 19~36% (level B) and 22~47%
for cases that do not undergo surgery after percutaneous
gallbladder drainage.
123
20
None.
References
1. Kimura Y, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Hirata K,
Sekimoto M, et al. Definitions, pathophysiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14(1):1526 (clinical
practice guidelines CPGs).
2. Ahrendt S, Pitt H. The biliary tract. In: Sabiston textbook of
surgery. 17th edn. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 2004. p. 1625.
3. Charcot M. De la fievre hepatique symptomatiquecomparaison avec la fievre uroseptique. Lecons sur les maladies du foie
des voies biliares et des reins). Paris: Bourneville et Sevestre;
1877. p. 176185.
123
21
45. Salek J, Livote E, Sideridis K, Bank S. Analysis of risk factors
predictive of early mortality and urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43:1715.
46. Gouma DJ, Obertop H. Acute calculous cholecystitis. What is
new in diagnosis and therapy? HPB Surg. 1992;6:6978.
47. Mack E. Role of surgery in the management of gallstones.
Semin Liver Dis. 1990;10:22231.
48. Hermann RE. Surgery for acute and chronic cholecystitis. Surg
Clin North Am. 1990;70:126375.
49. Sharp KW. Acute cholecystitis. Surg Clin North Am. 1988;68:
26979.
50. Jpn. Societ. Gastroenterol. Practice guidelines of the gallstone
disease. Tokyo: Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., 2009. p. 301 (in
Japanese, clinical practice guidelines CPGs).
51. Williamson RC. Acalculous disease of the gall bladder. Gut.
1988;29:86072.
52. Barie PS, Fischer E. Acute acalculous cholecystitis. J Am Coll
Surg. 1995;180:23244.
53. Ryu JK, Ryu KH, Kim KH. Clinical features of acute acalculous
cholecystitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;36:1669.
54. Wang AJ, Wang TE, Lin CC, Lin SC, Shih SC. Clinical predictors of severe gallbladder complications in acute acalculous
cholecystitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9:28213.
55. Matsusaki S, Maguchi H, Takahashi K, Katanuma A, Osanai M,
Urata T, et al. Clinical features of acute acalculous cholecystitis
nosocomial manner and community-acquired manner. Nihon
Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 2008;105:174957 (in Japanese).
56. Laurila J, Syrjala H, Laurila PA, Saarnio J, Ala-Kokko TI. Acute
acalculous cholecystitis in critically ill patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48:98691.
57. Theodorou P, Maurer CA, Spanholtz TA, Phan TQ, Amini P, Perbix
W, et al. Acalculous cholecystitis in severely burned patients:
incidence and predisposing factors. Burns. 2009;35:40511.
58. Friedman GD, Kannel WB, Dawber TR. The epidemiology of
gallbladder disease: observations in the Framingham Study.
J Chronic Dis. 1966;19:27392.
59. Torgerson JS, Lindroos AK, Naslund I, Peltonen M. Gallstones,
gallbladder disease, and pancreatitis: cross-sectional and 2-year
data from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) and SOS reference
studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:103241.
60. Liu B, Beral V, Balk Will A. Million Women Study Collaborators. Childbearing, breastfeeding, other reproductive factors
and the subsequent risk of hospitalization for gallbladder disease. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:3128.
61. Sharp HT. The acute abdomen during pregnancy. Clin Obstet
Gynecol. 2002;45:40513.
62. Michielsen PP, Fierens H, Van Maercke YM. Drug-induced
gallbladder disease. Incidence, aetiology and management. Drug
Saf. 1992;7:3245.
63. Tsai CJ, Leitzmann MF, Willett WC, Giovannucci EL. Statin
use and the risk of cholecystectomy in women. Gastroenterology.
2009;136:1593600.
64. Bodmer M, Brauchli YB, Krahenbuhl S, Jick SS, Meier CR.
Statin use and risk of gallstone disease followed by cholecystectomy. JAMA. 2009;302:20017.
65. Merzon E, Weiss NS, Lustman AJ, Elhayani A, Dresner J,
Vinker S. Statin administration and risk of cholecystectomy: a
population-based case-control study. Expert Opin Drug Saf.
2010;9:53943.
66. Erichsen R, Frslef T, Lash TL, Pedersen L, Srensen HT.
Long-term statin use and the risk of gallstone disease: A population-based case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:
16270.
67. Rosenberg L, Shapiro S, Slone D, Kaufman DW, Miettinen OS,
Stolley PD. Thiazides and acute cholecystitis. N Engl J Med.
1980;303:5468.
123
22
68. Gonzalez-Perez A, Garcia Rodriguez LA. Gallbladder disease in
the general population: association with cardiovascular morbidity
and therapy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:52431.
69. Leitzmann MF, Tsai CJ, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Giovannucci
E. Thiazide diuretics and the risk of gallbladder disease requiring
surgery in women. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:56773.
70. Porter JB, Jick H, Dinan BJ. Acute cholecystitis and thiazides.
N Engl J Med. 1981;304:9545.
71. Wagnetz U, Jaskolka J, Yang P, Jhaveri KS. Acute ischemic
cholecystitis after transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: incidence and clinical outcome. J Comput
Assist Tomogr. 2010;34:34853.
72. Nelson HD, Humphrey LL, Nygren P, Teutsch SM, Allan JD.
Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: scientific
review. JAMA. 2002;288:87281.
73. Cirillo DJ, Wallace RB, Rodabough RJ, Greenland P, LaCroix
AZ, Limacher MC, et al. Effect of estrogen therapy on gallbladder disease. JAMA. 2005;293:3309.
74. Cello JP. AIDS-related biliary tract disease. Gastrointest Endosc
Clin North Am. 1998;8:963.
75. LaRaja RD, Rothenberg RE, Odom JW, Mueller SC. The incidence of intra-abdominal surgery in acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome: a statistical review of 904 patients. Surgery. 1989;105:
1759.
76. Bilgin M, Balci NC, Erdogan A, Momtahen AJ, Alkaade S, Rau
WS. Hepatobiliary and pancreatic MRI and MRCP findings in
patients with HIV infection. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:
22832.
77. McSherry CK, Ferstenberg H, Virshup M. The Mirizzi syndrome: suggested classification and surgical therapy. Surg
Gastroenterol. 1982;1:21925.
78. Lemmel G. Die kliniscle Bedeutung der Duodenal Divertikel.
Arch Venduungskrht. 1934;46:5970.
79. Andrew DJ, Johnson SE. Acute suppurative cholangitis, a
medical and surgical emergency. A review of ten years. Am J
Gastroenterol. 1970;54:14154.
80. Shimada H, Nakagawara G, Kobayashi M, Tsuchiya S, Kudo T,
Morita S. Pathogenesis and clinical features of acute cholangitis
accompanied by shock. Jpn J Surg. 1984;14:26977 (in
Japanese).
81. Csendes A, Diaz JC, Burdiles P, Maluenda F, Morales E. Risk
factors and classification of acute suppurative cholangitis. Br J
Surg. 1992;79:6558.
82. Himal HS, Lindsay T. Ascending cholangitis: surgery versus
endoscopic or percutaneous drainage. Surgery. 1990;108:62933.
83. Chijiiwa K, Kozaki N, Naito T, Kameoka N. Treatment of
choice for choledocholithiasis in patients with acute obstructive
suppurative cholangitis and liver cirrhosis. Am J Surg.
1995;170:35660.
84. Liu TJ. Acute biliary septic shock. HPB Surg. 1990;2:17783.
85. Lai EC, Tam PC, Paterson IA, Ng MM, Fan ST, Choi TK, et al.
Emergency surgery for severe acute cholangitis. The high risk
patients. Ann Surg. 1990;211:559.
86. Arima N, Uchiya T, Hishikawa R, Saito M, Matsuo T, Kurisu S,
et al. Clinical characteristics of impacted bile duct stone in eldery. Jpn J Geriat. 1993;30:9648 (in Japanese).
87. Kunisaki C, Kobayashi S, Kido Y, Imai S, Harada H, Moriwaki
Y, et al. Clinical evaluation of acute cholangitis with speciaal
reference to detection of prognostic factor for acute obstructive
supprative cholangitis. J Abdom Emerg Med. 1997;17:2616 (in
Japanese).
88. Tai DI, Shen FH, Liaw YF. Abnormal pre-drainage serum creatinine as a prognostic indicator in acute cholangitis. Hepatogastroenterology. 1992;39:4750.
89. Thompson J, Bennion RS, Pitt HA. An analysis of infectious
failures in acute cholangitis. HPB Surg. 1994;8:13945.
123
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
23
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
123
GUIDELINE
123
be conducted; Grade1: others. As for the severity assessment criteria of TG07, separating Grade II and Grade I at
the time of diagnosis was impossible, so they were
unsuitable for clinical practice. Therefore, the severity
assessment criteria of TG13 have been revised so as not to
lose the timing of biliary drainage or treatment for etiology.
Based on evidence, five predictive factors for poor prognosis in acute cholangitishyperbilirubinemia, high fever,
leukocytosis, elderly patient and hypoalbuminemiahave
been extracted. Grade II can be diagnosed if two of these
five factors are present.
Free full-text articles and a mobile application of TG13 are
available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/tg13.html.
25
T. Itoi
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo
Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
J. A. Windsor
Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand
M. Yoshida
Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International
University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
P. C. Bornman
Division of General Surgery, Health Sciences, University of
Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Y. Yamashita
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
S.-T. Fan
Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Queen
Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
K. Okamoto
Department of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Yahata Hospital,
Kitakyushu, Japan
H. Singh
Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Hospital
Selayang, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia
T. Gabata
Department of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate
School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan
E. de Santibanes
Department of Surgery, Hospital Italianio, University of Buenos
Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
J. Hata
Department of Endoscopy and Ultrasound, Kawasaki Medical
School, Okayama, Japan
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Tochigi, Japan
R. Higuchi
Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology Tokyo
Womens Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
S. Kusachi
Department of Surgery, Toho University Medical Center Ohashi
Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Introduction
123
26
123
27
clinical signs or blood test in addition to biliary manifestations based on imaging are present.
Q3. How are TG13 diagnostic criteria for acute cholangitis appraised?
TG13 diagnostic criteria for acute cholangitis is more accurate
and reliable diagnostic capacity than TG07 (recommendation
1, level B).
There were no direct imaging findings which showed evidence of bile infection. Recently, it has been reported that
acute cholangitis can directly be depicted by computed
tomography (CT) of the abdomen with contrast (Figs. 1, 2).
However, in clinical practice, imaging modalities usually support the diagnosis of acute cholangitis by showing
indirect findings, which are biliary dilatation or evidence of
123
28
A-1
Fever
A-2
WBC (91000/lL)
CRP (mg/dl)
B-1
Jaundice
B-2
\4, or [10
C1
T-Bil C2 (mg/dL)
ALP (IU)
cGTP (IU)
[1.5 9 STD
[1.5 9 STD
AST (IU)
[1.5 9 STD
ALT (IU)
[1.5 9 STD
TG07
(%)
TG13
(%)
Sensitivity
26.4
82.6
95.1
91.8
Specificity
95.9
79.8
66.3
77.7
11.9
15.5
38.8
5.9
[Positive rate]
Acute
cholecystitis
123
29
123
30
can be assessed by contrast-enhanced dynamic CT. Preand postcontrast CT can depict biliary stones, pneumobilia, bile duct dilatation, bile duct wall thickening, and
bile duct stenosis or occlusion. However, such CT findings do not necessarily suggest the presence of acute
cholangitis.
Hepatic parenchymal changes seen at imaging in acute
cholangitis are likely to be related to the extension of the
inflammatory process into the periportal tissues [1720]. In
acute cholangitis, the inflammatory process of the peripheral bile duct spreading as far as the periportal areas
(Glissons sheath) causes a decreased portal blood flow and
an increased arterial blood flow. On the arterial phase of
dynamic CT, inhomogeneous hepatic parenchymal
enhancement (nodular, patchy, wedge-shaped or geographic) is frequently seen in patients with acute cholangitis [16, 17] (Figs. 1, 2). This inhomogeneous hepatic
enhancement of contrast-enhanced dynamic CT appears in
the arterial phase only, and disappears in the portal and
equilibrium phases. Follow-up dynamic CT performed
after treatment for acute cholangitis showed decreased or
no inhomogeneous enhancement, according to the
improvement of biliary inflammation (Supplementary
Figure 4).
In conclusion, contrast-enhanced dynamic CT is recommended for making a prompt diagnosis of clinically
suspected acute cholangitis.
Q5. Can CT make a diagnosis of the etiology and
complications of acute cholangitis?
CT is suggested as the most effective imaging method for the
diagnosis of etiology and complication of acute cholangitis
(recommendation 2, level D).
123
disappears in the equilibrium phase. This transient segmental enhancement in dynamic CT reflects a decrease in
segmental portal blood flow and an increase in compensatory hepatic arterial blood flow due to periportal
inflammation within the Glisons sheath adjacent to the
hepatic abscess [24, 25].
Q6. What are the indication and significance of MRI
(MRCP) for acute cholangitis?
31
Welch [2]
Boey [3]
ASC
Charcots
triad (%)
Fever
(%)
Jaundice
(%)
Abdominal
pain (%)
Reynolds
pentad (%)
Shock
(%)
Disturbed
consciousness
(%)
History of
biliary diseases
50
80
60
20
100
AOSC
15
50
88
67
33
27
46.7
AC
SC
99
14
69.7
93.9
78.8
87.9
16.2
57
16.2
28
75
12
22
38.7
65.4
92.2
7.2
About 60
100
66
59
NonSC
72
5.1
7
4
Csendes
[9]
ASC
512
Thompson
[10]
AC
66
Gigot [11]
AC
412
72
3.5
7.8
61
OConnor
[12]
AC
65
60
7.7
32
14
21.5
SC
NonSC
19
46
53
63
5
9
47
26
11
15
Lai [13]
Severe
AC
86
56
66
93
90
Haupert
[14]
ASC
13
15.4
100
61.5
100
64
7.7
23.1
66
27.9
7.7
53.8
It has been reported in the United States that approximately 70 % of patients with acute cholangitis are able to
achieve improvement with medical therapy alone [29].
Some cases do not respond to medical treatment and the
clinical manifestations and laboratory data do not improve.
Such cases may progress to sepsis with or without organ
dysfunction and require appropriate management that
includes intensive care, organ-supportive care, and urgent
biliary drainage, in addition to medical treatment. There is
also a report showing approximately a 10 % mortality rate
due to acute cholangitis despite the occurrence of responses
to antimicrobial therapy and biliary drainage [30, 31].
TG07 severity assessment criteria for acute cholangitis
TG07 established the worlds first severity assessment
criteria for acute cholangitis at the International Consensus
Meeting in Tokyo in 2006 [6] and classified those conditions with organ dysfunction as severe (Grade III), those
showing no responses to the initial treatment as moderate
(Grade II), and those responding to the initial treatment as
mild (Grade I).
However, the use of TG07 severity assessment criteria in
actual situations has shown that it is impossible to distinguish moderate cases (Grade II) and mild cases (Grade I) as
soon as the initial diagnosis has been made. In TG07,
Grades II and I were only assessed after observation of the
treatment courses. In this treatment strategy, urgent biliary
drainage can be indicated for cases assessed as severe, but
123
32
2. Neurological dysfunction
Disturbance of consciousness
3. Respiratory dysfunction
4. Renal dysfunction
5. Hepatic dysfunction
PT-INR [1.5
6. Hematological dysfunction
123
None.
References
1. Dow RW, Lindenauer SM. Acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis. Ann Surg. 1969;169:2726.
2. Welch JP, Donaldson GA. The urgency of diagnosis and surgical
treatment of acute suppurative cholangitis. Am J Surg. 1976;131:
52732.
3. Boey JH, Way LW. Acute cholangitis. Ann Surg. 1980;191:
26470.
4. Saharia PC, Cameron JL. Clinical management of acute cholangitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1976;142:36972.
5. Ostemiller W Jr, Thompson RJ Jr, Carter R, Hinshaw DB. Acute
cholangitis. World J Surg. 1984;8:9639.
6. Wada K, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Miura F, Yoshida
M, et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute
cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14(1):528 (Clinical practical guidelines: CPGs).
7. Yokoe M, Takada T, Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Hasegawa H,
Norimizu S, et al. Accuracy of the Tokyo Guidelines for the
diagnosis of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis taking into consideration the clinical practice pattern in Japan. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:2507.
8. Kiriyama S, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Solomkin JS, Mayumi T,
Pitt HA, et al. New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of
acute cholangitis in revised Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:54856.
33
9. Csendes A, Diaz JC, Burdiles P, Maluenda F, Morales E. Risk
factors and classification of acute suppurative cholangitis. Br J
Surg. 1992;79:6558.
10. Thompson J, Bennion RS, Pitt HA. An analysis of infectious
failures in acute cholangitis. HPB Surg. 1994;8:13944.
11. Gigot JF, Leese T, Dereme T, Coutinho J, Castaing D, Bismuth
H. Acute cholangitis. Multivariate analysis of risk factors. Ann
Surg. 1989;209(4):4358.
12. OConnor MJ, Schwartz ML, McQuarrie DG, Sumer HW. Acute
bacterial cholangitis: an analysis of clinical manifestation. Arch
Surg. 1982;117:43741.
13. Lai EC, Tam PC, Paterson IA, Ng MM, Fan ST, Choi TK, et al.
Emergency surgery for severe acute cholangitis. The high-risk
patients. Ann Surg. 1990;211:559.
14. Haupert AP, Carey LC, Evans WE, Ellison EH. Acute suppurative cholangitis. Experience with 15 consecutive cases. Arch
Surg. 1967;94:46068.
15. Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Yoshida M, Mayumi T, Sekimoto M, et al. Background: Tokyo Guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:110 (CPGs).
16. Arai K, Kawai K, Kohda W, Tatsu H, Matsui O, Nakahama T.
Dynamic CT of acute cholangitis. AJR. 2003;181:1158.
17. Pradella S, Centi N, La Villa G, Mazza E, Colagrande S. Transient hepatic attenuation difference (THAD) in biliary duct disease. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:62633.
18. Lee NK, Kim S, Lee JW, Kim CW, Kim GH, Kang DH, et al.
Discrimination of suppurative cholangitis from nonsuppurative
cholangitis with computed tomography (CT). Eur J Radiol.
2009;69:52835.
19. Bader TR, Braga L, Beavers KL, Semelka RC. MR imaging
findings of infectious cholangitis. Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;19:
7818.
20. Catalano OA, Sahani DV, Forcione DG, Czermak B, Liu CH,
Soricelli A, et al. Biliary infections: spectrum of imaging findings
and management. Radiographics. 2009;29:205980.
21. Rubinson HA, Isikoff MB, Hill MC. Morphologic aspects of
hepatic abscesses: a retrospective analysis. AJR. 1980;135:
73540.
22. Halvorsen RA, Korobkin M, Foster WL, Silverman PM,
Thompson WM. The variable CT appearance of hepatic abscesses. AJR. 1984;141:9416.
23. Mathieu D, Vasile N, Fagniez PL, Segui S, Grably D, Larde D.
Dynamic CT features of hepatic abscesses. Radiology.
1985;154:74952.
24. Gabata T, Kadoya M, Matsui O, Kobayashi T, Kawamori Y,
Sanada J, et al. Dynamic CT of hepatic abscesses: significance of
transient segmental enhancement. AJR. 2001;176:6759.
25. Laokpessi A, Bouillet P, Sautereau D, Cessot F, Desport JC, Le
Sidaner A, et al. Value of magnetic resonance cholangiography in
the preoperative diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Am J
Gastroenterol. 2001;96:23549.
26. Lomanto D, Pavone P, Laghi A, Panebianco V, Mazzocchi P,
Fiocca F, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in
the diagnosis of biliopancreatic diseases. Am J Surg.
1997;174:338.
27. Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW, Zfass AM, Baker KM. HalfFourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300
subjects. Radiology. 1998;207:2132.
28. Balci NC, Semelka RC, Noone TC, Siegelman ES, de Beeck BO,
Brown JJ, et al. Pyogenic hepatic abscesses: MRI findings on T1and T2-weighted and serial gadolinium-enhanced gradient-echo
images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:28590.
29. Attasaranya S, Fogel EL, Lehman GA. Choledocholithiasis,
ascending cholangitis, and gallstone pancreatitis. Med Clin North
Am. 2008;92(4):92560.
123
34
30. Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, Lo CM, Fan ST, You KT, et al.
Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis. N Engl J
Med. 1992;326(24):15826.
31. Leung JW, Chung SC, Sung JJ, Banez VP, Li AK. Urgent
endoscopic drainage for acute suppurative cholangitis. Lancet.
1989;1(8650):13079.
123
GUIDELINE
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Tochigi, Japan
123
36
K. Okamoto
Department of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Yahata Hospital,
Kitakyushu, Japan
T. Tsuyuguchi
Department of Medicine and Clinical Oncology, Graduate
School of Medicine Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
T. Itoi
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo
Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
Y. Yamashita
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
C. Dervenis
First Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens,
Greece
A. C. W. Chan
Department of Surgery, Surgery Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium
and Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
W.-Y. Lau
Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
123
the basis of the test results for TG07 diagnostic criteria [6].
TG07 guidelines have already been recognized as the
diagnostic criteria to be recommended in todays medical
care for acute cholecystitis [1]; however, guidelines should
achieve further evolution. In view of the current situation
where diagnostic imaging such as ultrasonography (US),
CT and scintigraphy (HIDA scan) are frequently used for
the definite diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, integration of
such diagnostic modalities in guidelines is the main theme
in the present revision.
Acute cholecystitis sometimes requires emergency
treatment for morbidities such as gangrenous cholecystitis,
emphysematous cholecystitis and gallbladder torsion. An
indication that it may require high-level skills is given by
its other name, difficult gallbladder [7, 8]. In making a
diagnosis of acalculous cholecystitis, challenges may be
encountered. There may be cases with a poor prognosis
[9, 10]. The severity assessment criteria in TG07 defined
severe acute cholecystitis as acute cholecystitis accompanying organ dysfunction directly related to vital prognosis.
Actually, the overall mortality rate of acute cholecystitis is
approximately 0.6 % [11, 12], and that of severe cases was
reported in TG07 as 6.0 % [13]. Acute cholecystitis is
essentially not a disease with a high mortality rate. However, it was thought that guidelines should make it clear
that appropriate management with appropriate use of
severity assessment criteria does lead to improved vital
prognosis.
A. N. Supe
Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Seth G S Medical
College and K E M Hospital, Mumbai, India
G. Belli
General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy
S. C. Hilvano
Department of Surgery, College of Medicine-Philippine General
Hospital, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines
K.-H. Liau
Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Nexus Surgical
Associates, Mount Elizabeth Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
M.-H. Kim
Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center,
University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea
S.-W. Kim
Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of
Medicine, Seoul, Korea
C.-G. Ker
Yuans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
37
Murphys sign
Revision of TG07 diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis
Q1. How large is the diagnostic capacity of Murphys
sign for acute cholecystitis?
Murphys sign shows high specificity, however the sensitivity
has been reported low. It is not applicable in making a
diagnosis of acute cholecystitis due to the low sensitivity
(level D).
123
38
An assessment by multicenter analysis of TG13 diagnostic criteria shows that sensitivity (91.2 %) and specificity (96.9 %) are favorable and that diagnostic capacity is
almost the same as that in TG07 [16]. It is pointed out that
the diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis in TG07 have
limitations in that patients with few systemic symptoms
tends to be underdiagnosed [1]. There is also a report
showing that neither fever nor an elevated white cell count
were observed in 16 % of cases with gangrenous cholecystitis or in 28 % of cases with non-gangrenous cholecystitis [8]. It is important that the diagnosis is confirmed
repeatedly for cases with suspected cholecystitis.
Laboratory data
What is the most important blood test for making
a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis?
There are no specific blood tests for making a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. So, the diagnosis can be
made if the following findings are present: general
inflammatory findings (abnormal white blood cell
count, elevated CRP level), an increase in blood cell
count of more than 10000 mm3/dl, an increase in CRP
level of more than 3 mg/dl, and a mild increase of
serum enzymes in the hepato-biliary-pancreatic system
and bilirubin.
The bilirubin level may rise to 4 mg/dl (68 lmol/dl) in
the absence of complications [1]. When ultrasonography
shows findings that suggest acute cholecystitis and a CRP
level exceeding 3 mg/dl, a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis
can be made with 97 % sensitivity, 76 % specificity, and
95 % positive predictive value [24].
Eskelinen [2]
124
Brewer [19]
26
RUQ
pain
(%)
Epigastralgia
(%)
Nausea
(%)
Emesis
(%)
Fever
(%)
Rebound
(%)
Guarding
(%)
Rigidity
(%)
Mass
(%)
Murphys
sign (%)
56
25
31
60
62 (C37.1 C)
48
30
66
16
62
77
30 (C38 C)
35
58
3.9
About 30
About 45
About 10
Schofield [20]
Staniland [21]
64
100
Halasz [3]
191
93
Johnson [4]
37
70
Singer [22]
40
Adedeji [23]
62
38
About 80
83
About 70
31 ([37.5 C)
34
11
73
62
24
62
10 ([38.0 C)
65
23
123
14
About 25
48
39
Imaging findings
Ultrasonography (US)
Q5. Which type of diagnostic imaging method should be
used, first of all, for making a diagnosis of acute
cholecystitis?
Ultrasonography should be performed at the initial consultation
for all cases for which acute cholecystitis is suspected
(recommendation 1, level A).
No. of patients
Negative
Anorexia
1135
1.11.7
0.50.9
0.65 (0.570.73)
0.50 (0.490.51)
Emesis
1338
1.5 (1.12.1)
0.6 (0.30.9)
0.71 (0.650.76)
0.53 (0.520.55)
Fever
Guarding
8
2
1292
1170
1.5 (1.02.3)
1.12.8
0.9 (0.81.0)
0.51.0
0.35 (0.310.38)
0.45 (0.370.54)
0.80 (0.780.82)
0.70 (0.690.71)
Murphys sign
565
2.8 (0.88.6)
0.5 (0.21.0)
0.65 (0.580.71)
0.87 (0.850.89)
Nausea
669
1.01.2
0.61.0
0.77 (0.690.83)
0.36 (0.340.38)
Rebound
1381
1.0 (0.61.7)
1.0 (0.81.4)
0.30 (0.230.37)
0.68 (0.670.69)
Rectal tenderness
1170
0.30.7
1.01.3
0.08 (0.040.14)
0.82 (0.810.83)
Rigidity
1140
0.502.32
1.01.2
0.11 (0.060.18)
0.87 (0.860.87)
RUQ mass
408
0.8 (0.51.2)
1.0 (0.91.1)
0.21 (0.180.23)
0.80 (0.750.85)
RUQ pain
949
1.5 (0.92.5)
0.7 (0.31.6)
0.81 (0.780.85)
0.67 (0.650.69)
RUQ tenderness
1001
1.6 (1.02.5)
0.4 (0.21.1)
0.77 (0.730.81)
0.54 (0.520.56)
123
40
hypoechoic layer
Wall thickening
liver
debris
Stone impaction
123
41
gallbladder,
pericholecystic abscess,
123
42
grading of acute cholecystitis was classified into the following 3 categories: mild (Grade I), moderate (Grade
II) and severe (Grade III). Severe (Grade III) acute
cholecystitis was defined as acute cholecystitis associated
with organ dysfunction.
Moderate (Grade II) acute cholecystitis was defined as
acute cholecystitis in which the degree of acute inflammation is likely to be associated with increased operative
difficulty in performing cholecystectomy [4449].
Mild (Grade I) acute cholecystitis was defined as
occurring in a patient who has no findings of organ dysfunction and mild disease in the gallbladder, enabling
cholecystectomy as a safe and low risk procedure. These
patients do not have a severity index that meets the criteria
for moderate (Grade II) and severe (Grade III) acute
cholecystitis in TG07.
There are reports that discussed and appraised the TG07
severity assessment criteria. According to those papers, the
distribution varies as follows: 39.368.5 % of the cases
were classified as Grade I, 25.559.5 % as Grade II, and
1.26 % as Grade III [14, 15]. In addition, there is a report
123
43
respiratory failure
renal failure
hepatic
Hypotension requiring treatment with dopamine C5 lg/kg per min, or any dose of norepinephrine
2. Neurological dysfunction
3. Respiratory dysfunction
4. Renal dysfunction
5. Hepatic dysfunction
PT-INR [1.5
6. Hematological dysfunction
Platelet count \100,000/mm3
Grade II (moderate) acute cholecystitis
Associated with any one of the following conditions:
1. Elevated white blood cell count ([18,000/mm3)
2. Palpable tender mass in the right upper abdominal quadrant
3. Duration of complaints [72 h
4. Marked local inflammation (gangrenous cholecystitis, pericholecystic abscess, hepatic abscess, biliary peritonitis, emphysematous
cholecystitis)
Grade I (mild) acute cholecystitis
Does not meet the criteria of Grade III or Grade II acute cholecystitis. Grade I can also be defined as acute cholecystitis in a healthy
patient with no organ dysfunction and mild inflammatory changes in the gallbladder, making cholecystectomy a safe and low-risk operative
procedure
123
44
Fig. 4 Emphysematous cholecystitis. The presence of intramural/intraluminal gas indicates emphysematous cholecystitis. The echo from small
gas bubbles shows multiple reverberation
Q12. What morbid conditions are referred to as moderate in assessing severity for acute cholecystitis?
123
Through the discussion of 19 cases of gangrenous cholecystitis, Jeffrey et al. [7] found that the membraneous
structure of the lumen within the gallbladder is observed in
31.6 % (6 cases), irregular thickening of the gallbladder
wall in 47.4 % (9 cases), both of these findings in 21.1 %
(4 cases), and either of these findings in 57.9 % (11 cases).
Regarding perforation, Forsberg et al. [64] also reported on
the basis of the discussion involving 24 cases of perforation
and 21 cases of acute cholecystitis without perforation that
no specific findings were observed, although a slightly
thickened wall was observed (320 mm, mean 7 mm, for
cases with perforation; 213 mm, mean 5.3 mm, for cases
without perforation). On the other hand, according to Sood
et al. [65] depiction of the ruptured wall as a direct finding
of gallbladder perforation was able to be made with
ultrasonography in 70 % (16 of 23 cases) and with CT in
78 % (14 of 18 cases). Depending on the performance of
the instrument used, it can be assumed that the diagnosis
can be made for considerable numbers of cases (Fig. 4;
Supplement Movie 2).
Acknowledgments We would like to express our deep gratitude to
the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan
Biliary Association, Japan Society for Surgical Infection, and the
Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, which
None.
References
1. Steven M, Strasberg MD. Acute calculous cholecystitis. N Engl J
Med. 2008;358:280411.
2. Eskelinen M, Ikonen J, Lipponen P. Diagnostic approaches in
acute cholecystitis; a prospective study of 1333 patients with
acute abdominal pain. Theor Surg. 1993;8:1520.
3. Halasz NA. Counterfeit cholecystitis, a common diagnostic
dilemma. Am J Surg. 1975;130:18993.
4. Johnson H Jr, Cooper B. The value of HIDA scans in the initial
evaluation of patients for cholecystitis. J Natl Med Assoc.
1995;87:2732.
5. Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Miura F, Hirata K,
et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14(1):7882 (Epub 2007 Jan 30) (clinical practice guidelines: CPGs).
6. Yokoe M, Takada T, Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Hasegawa H,
Norimizu S, et al. Accuracy of the Tokyo Guidelines for the
diagnosis of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis taking into consideration the clinical practice pattern in Japan. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:2507.
7. Jeffrey RB, Laing FC, Wong W, Callen PW. Gangrenous cholecystitis: diagnosis by ultrasound. Radiology. 1983;148:21921.
8. Gruber PJ, Silverman RA, Gottesfeld S, Flaster E. Presence of
fever and leukocytosis in acute cholecystitis. Ann Emerg Med.
1996;28:2737.
9. Ryu JK, Ryu KH, Kim KH. Clinical features of acute acalculous
cholecystitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;36:1669.
10. Barie PS, Eachempati SR. Acute acalculous cholecystitis. Curr
Gastroenterol Rep. 2003;5:3029.
11. Portincasa P, Moschetta A, Palasciano G. Cholesterol gallstone
disease. Lancet. 2006;15(368):2309.
12. Shaffer EA. Epidemiology and risk factors for gallstone disease:
has the paradigm changed in the 21st century? Curr Gastroenterol
Rep. 2005;7:13240.
13. Lee SW, Yang SS, Chang CS, Yeh HJ. Impact of the Tokyo
guidelines on the management of patients with acute calculous
cholecystitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24(12):18571861.
14. Asai K, Watanabe M, Kusachi S, Tanaka H, Matsukiyo H, Osawa
A, et al. Bacteriological analysis of bile in acute cholecystitis
according to the Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.
2012;19(4):476486.
15. Lee SW, Chang CS, Lee TY, Tung CF, Peng YC. The role of the
Tokyo guidelines in the diagnosis of acute calculous cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010;17(6):879884.
16. Yokoe M, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Solomkin JS, Mayumi T,
Gomi H, et al. New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of
acute cholecystitis in revised Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:57885.
17. Murphy JB. The diagnosis of gall-stones. Am Med News.
1903;82:82533.
18. Trowbridge RL, Rutkowski NK, Shojania KG. Does this patient
have acute cholecystitis? JAMA. 2003;289:806.
19. Brewer BJ, Golden GT, Hitch DC, Rudolf LE, Wangensteen SL.
Abdominal pain. An analysis of 1,000 consecutive cases in a
University Hospital emergency room. Am J Surg. 1976;131:
21923.
45
20. Schofied PF, Hulton NR, Baildam AD. Is it acute cholecystitis?
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1986;68:146.
21. Staniland JR, Ditchburn J, De Dombal FT. Clinical presentation
of acute abdomen: study of 600 patients. Br Med J. 1972;3:
3938.
22. Singer AJ, McCracken G, Henry MC, Thode HC Jr, Cabahug CJ.
Correlation among clinical, laboratory, and hepatobiliary scanning findings in patients with suspected acute cholecystitis. Ann
Emerg Med. 1996;28:26772.
23. Adedeji OA, McAdam WA. Murphys sign, acute cholecystitis
and elderly people. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1996;41:889.
24. Juvonen T, Kiviniemi H, Niemela O, Kairaluoma MI. Diagnostic
accuracy of ultrasonography and C reactive protein concentration
in acute cholecystitis: a prospective clinical study. Eur J Surg.
1992;158:3659.
25. Rosen CL, Brown DF, Chang Y, Moore C, Averill NJ, Arkoff LJ,
et al. Ultrasonography by emergency physicians in patients with
suspected cholecystitis. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19:326.
26. Kendall JL, Shimp RJ. Performance and interpretation of focused
right upper quadrant ultrasound by emergency. J Emerg Med.
2001;21:713.
27. Chatziioannou SN, Moore WH, Ford PV, Dhekne RD. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy is superior to abdominal ultrasonography in
suspected acute cholecystitis. Surgery. 2000;127:60913.
28. Shea JA, Berlin JA, Escarce JJ, Clarke JR, Kinosian BP, Cabana
MD, et al. Revised estimates of diagnostic test sensitivity and
specificity in suspected biliary tract disease. Arch Intern Med.
1994;154:257381.
29. Ralls PW, Coletti PM, Lapin SA, Chandrasoma P, Boswell WD,
Ngo C, et al. Real-time sonography in suspected acute cholecystitis. Radiology. 1985;155:76771.
30. Martinez A, Bona X, Velasco M, Martin J. Diagnostic accuracy
of ultrasound in acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Radiol.
1986;11:3348.
31. Park MS, Yu JS, Kim YH, Kim MJ, Kim JH, Lee S, et al. Acute
cholecystitis: comparison of MR cholangiography and US.
Radiology. 1998;209:7815.
32. Cohan RH, Mahony BS, Bowie JD, Cooper C, Baker ME, Illescas
FF. Striated intramural gallbladder lucencies on US studies:
predictors of acute cholecystitis. Radiology. 1987;164:315.
33. Ralls PW, Halls J, Lapin SA, Quinn MF, Morris UL, Boswell W.
Prospective evaluation of the sonographic Murphy sign in suspected acute cholecystitis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1982;10:1135.
34. Bree RL. Further observations on the usefulness of the sonographic Murphy sign in the evaluation of suspected acute cholecystitis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1995;23:16972.
35. Soyer P, Brouland JP, Boudiaf M, Kardache M, Pelage JP, Panis
Y, et al. Color velocity imaging and power Doppler sonography
of the gallbladder wall: a new look at sonographic diagnosis of
acute cholecystitis. AJR. 1998;171:1838.
36. Tessler FN, Tublin ME. Blood flow in healthy gallbladder walls
on color and power Doppler sonography: effect of wall thickness
and gallbladder volume. AJR. 1999;173:12479.
37. Jeffrey RB Jr, Nino-Murcia M, Ralls PW, Jain KA, Davidson HC.
Color Doppler sonography of the cystic artery: comparison of
normal controls and patients with acute cholecystitis. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:336.
38. Fidler J, Paulson EK, Layfield L. CT evaluation of acute cholecystitis: findings and usefulness in diagnosis. AJR. 1996;166:
10858.
39. Yamashita K, Jin MJ, Hirose Y, Morikawa M, Sumioka H, Itoh
K, et al. CT finding of transient focal increased attenuation of the
liver adjacent to the gallbladder in acute cholecystitis. AJR.
1995;164:3436.
40. Ito K, Awaya H, Mitchell DG, Honjo K, Fujita T, Uchisako H,
et al. Gallbladder disease: appearance of associated transient
123
46
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
123
54. Wang AJ, Wang TE, Lin CC, Lin SC, Shih SC. Clinical predictors of severe gallbladder complications in acute acalculous
cholecystitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9(12):28213.
55. Contini S, Corradi D, Busi N, Alessandri L, Pezzarossa A,
Scarpignato C. Can gangrenous cholecystitis be prevented? A
plea against a wait and see attitude. J Clin Gastroenterol.
2004;38(8):7106.
56. McChesney JA, Northup PG, Bickston SJ. Acute acalculous
cholecystitis associated with systemic sepsis and visceral arterial
hypoperfusion: a case series and review of pathophysiology. Dig
Dis Sci. 2003;48(10):19607.
57. Young AL, Cockbain AJ, White AW, Hood A, Menon KV,
Toogood GJ. Index admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy for
patients with acute biliary symptoms: results from a specialist
centre. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(4):2706.
58. Girgin S, Gedik E, Tacyildiz IH, Akgun Y, Bac B, Uysal E.
Factors affecting morbidity and mortality in gangrenous cholecystitis. Acta Chir Belg. 2006;106(5):545549.
59. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM,
Jaeschke R, International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines
Committee, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international
guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock:
2008. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(1):296327.
60. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonca A,
Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure
Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On
behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the
European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care
Med. 1996;22(7):70710.
61. Hadad SM, Vaidya JS, Baker L, Koh HC, Heron TP, Hussain K,
et al. Delay from symptom onset increases the conversion rate in
laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. World J
Surg. 2007;31:1298301.
62. Kiriyama S, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Solomkin JS, Mayumi T,
Pitt HA, et al. New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of
acute cholangitis in revised Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:54856.
63. Tsuyuguchi T, Sugiyama H, Sakai Y, Nishikawa T, Yokosuka O,
Mayumi T, et al. Prognostic factors of acute cholangitis in cases
managed using the Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat
Sci. 2012;19:55765.
64. Forsberg L, Andersson R, Hederstrom E, Tranberg KG. Ultrasonography and gallbladder perforation in acute cholecystitis.
Acta Radiol. 1988;29:2035.
65. Sood BP, Kalra N, Gupta S, Sidhu R, Gulati M, Khandelwal N,
Suri S. Role of sonography in the diagnosis of gallbladder perforation. J Clin Ultrasound. 2002;30:2704.
GUIDELINE
M. Yoshida
Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International
University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
S. M. Strasberg
Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery,
Washington University in Saint Louis School of Medicine,
Saint Louis, MO, USA
J. S. Solomkin
Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College
of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
H. A. Pitt
Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, IN, USA
D. J. Gouma
Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
O. J. Garden
Clinical Surgery, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
M. W. Buchler
Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany
T. Mayumi
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine,
Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
K. Okamoto
Department of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Yahata Hospital,
Kitakyushu, Japan
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan
S. Kusachi
Department of Surgery, Toho University Medical Center Ohashi
Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
S. Kiriyama
Department of Gastroenterology, Ogaki Municipal Hospital,
Ogaki, Japan
M. Yokoe
General Internal Medicine, Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital,
Nagoya, Japan
123
48
Introduction
This article describes strategies for the management of
acute cholangitis and cholecystitis including initial medical
treatment flowcharts. We established a flowchart for the
diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis as reported in the Tokyo Guidelines 2007 [1].
Flowcharts for the management of acute cholangitis and
cholecystitis have been revised in the updated Tokyo
Guidelines (TG13).
We consider that the primary purpose of the flowcharts
is to allow clinicians to grasp, at a glance, the outline of the
management strategy of the disease. Flowcharts have been
colored for easy access and rapid understanding, and most
of the treatment methods are included in the flowcharts to
achieve their primary purpose.
Y. Kimura
Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastroenterological
Surgery, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine,
Sapporo, Japan
Diagnostic
Criteria
of TG13
Acute
Cholecystitis
Other
Diseases
R. Higuchi
Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology,
Tokyo Womens Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
T. Itoi
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,
Tokyo Medical University,
Tokyo, Japan
Y. Yamashita
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
J. Hata
Department of Endoscopy and Ultrasound,
Kawasaki Medical School, Okayama, Japan
J. A. Windsor
Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
K.-H. Liau
Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery,
Nexus Surgical Associates, Mount Elizabeth Hospital,
Singapore, Singapore
T. Tsuyuguchi
Department of Medicine and Clinical Oncology, Graduate
School of Medicine Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
123
49
Early treatment, while fasting as a rule, includes sufficient infusion, the administration of antimicrobial and
analgesic agents, along with the monitoring of respiratory
hemodynamic conditions in preparation for emergency
drainage [1].
When acute cholangitis has become more severe, that is,
if any one of the following signs is observed such as shock
(reduced blood pressure), consciousness disturbance, acute
lung injury, acute renal injury, hepatic injury, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) (decreased
platelet count), emergency biliary drainage is carried out
together with appropriate organ support (sufficient infusion
and anti-microbial administration), and respiratory and
circulatory management (artificial respiration, intubation,
and use of vasopressors) [1].
Q2. Should the severe sepsis bundle be referred to for
the early treatment of acute cholangitis accompanying
severe sepsis?
Diagnostic imaging
Abdominal ultrasound (US) and abdominal computerized
tomography (CT) with intravenous contrast are very useful
test procedures for evaluating patients with acute biliary
tract disease. Abdominal US should be performed in all
patients with suspected acute biliary inflammation/infection [1]. Ultrasonic examination has satisfactory diagnostic
capabilities when performed not only by specialists but
also by emergency physicians [12, 13]. The role of diagnostic imaging in acute cholangitis is to determine the
presence of biliary obstruction, the level of obstruction, and
the cause of the obstruction such as gallstones and/or biliary strictures [1]. The assessment should include US and
CT. These studies complement each other and CT may
yield better imaging of bile duct dilatation and
pneumobilia.
Differential diagnosis
Diseases which should be differentiated from acute cholangitis are acute cholecystitis, liver abscess, gastric and
duodenal ulcer, acute pancreatitis, acute hepatitis, and
septicemia from other origins.
Q1. What is the initial medical treatment of acute
cholangitis?
On condition that biliary drainage is conducted during hospital
stay as a rule, sufficient infusion, electrolyte correction, and
antimicrobial and analgesic administration take place while
fasting (recommendation 1, level C).
123
50
Diagnosis and
Severity
Assessment by
TG13
Guidelines
Grade I
(Mild)
Grade II
(Moderate)
Antibiotics
and General
Supportive Care
Finish course
of antibiotics
Treatment
Biliary
Drainage
for etiology
if still needed
(Endoscopic treatment,
percutaneous treatment,
Grade III
(Severe)
or surgery)
Performance of a blood culture should be taken into consideration before initiation of administration of
antibiotics. A bile culture should be performed during biliary drainage.
Principle of treatment for acute cholangitis consists of antimicrobial administration and biliary drainage
including treatment for etiology. For patient with choledocholithiasis, treatment for etiology might be
performed simultaneously, if possible, with biliary drainage.
123
51
Early treatment, with fasting as a rule, includes sufficient infusion, the administration of antimicrobial and
analgesic agents, along with the monitoring of respiratory
hemodynamics in preparation for emergency surgery and
drainage [1].
When any one of the following morbidities is observed:
further aggravation of acute cholecystitis, shock (reduced
blood pressure), consciousness disturbance, acute respiratory injury, acute renal injury, hepatic injury, and DIC
(reduced platelet count), then appropriate organ support
123
52
123
Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the first-line treatment. In patients with surgical risk, observation (follow-up
without cholecystectomy) after improvement with initial
medical treatment could be indicated.
Grade II (moderate) acute cholecystitis
Grade II (moderate) acute cholecystitis is often accompanied by severe local inflammation. Therefore, surgeons
should take the difficulty of cholecystectomy into
consideration in selecting a treatment method. Elective
cholecystectomy after the improvement of the acute
inflammatory process is the first-line treatment. If a patient
does not respond to initial medical treatment, urgent or
early gallbladder drainage is required. Early laparoscopic
cholecystectomy could be indicated if advanced laparoscopic techniques are available. Grade II (moderate) acute
cholecystitis with serious local complications is an indication for urgent cholecystectomy and drainage.
Grade III (severe) acute cholecystitis
Grade III (severe) acute cholecystitis is accompanied by
organ dysfunction. Appropriate organ support such as
ventilatory/circulatory management (noninvasive/invasive
positive pressure ventilation and use of vasopressors, etc.)
in addition to initial medical treatment is necessary. Urgent
or early gallbladder drainage should be performed. Elective
53
Diagnosis and
Severity
Assessment by
TG13
Guidelines
Grade I
(Mild)
Grade II
(Moderate)
Observation
Antibiotics
and General
Supportive Care
Antibiotics
and General
Supportive Care
Early LC
Advanced laparoscopic
technique
available
Emergency
Surgery
Successful therapy
Failure
therapy
Grade III
(Severe)
Antibiotics
and General
Organ Support
Delayed/
Elective
LC
Urgent/early
GB drainage
None.
References
1. Miura F, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Wada K, Hirota M,
et al. Flowcharts for the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:2734. (clinical practice guidelines:
CPGs).
2. Charcot M. De la fievre hepatique symptomatiquecomparaison
avec la fievre uroseptique. Paris: Bourneville et Sevestre; 1877.
3. Boey JH, Way LW. Acute cholangitis. Ann Surg. 1980;191:
26470.
4. Csendes A, Diaz JC, Burdiles P, Maluenda F, Morales E. Risk
factors and classification of acute suppurative cholangitis. Br J
Surg. 1992;79:6558.
5. Welch JP, Donaldson GA. The urgency of diagnosis and surgical
treatment of acute suppurative cholangitis. Am J Surg.
1976;131:52732.
6. OConnor MJ, Schwartz ML, McQuarrie DG, Sumer HW. Acute
bacterial cholangitis: an analysis of clinical manifestation. Arch
Surg. 1982;117:43741.
7. Reynolds BM, Dargan EL. Acute obstructive cholangitis; a distinct clinical syndrome. Ann Surg. 1959;150:299303.
123
54
18. Eskelinen M, Ikonen J, Lipponen P. Diagnostic approaches in
acute cholecystitis; a prospective study of 1333 patients with
acute abdominal pain. Theor Surg. 1993;8:1520.
19. Staniland JR, Ditchburn J, De Dombal FT. Clinical presentation
of acute abdomen: study of 600 patients. Br Med J. 1972;3:
3938.
20. Trowbridge RL, Rutkowski NK, Shojania KG. Does this patient
have acute cholecystitis? JAMA. 2003;289:806.
21. Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Miura F, Hirata K,
et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14:7882. (clinical practice guidelines: CPGs).
22. Ralls PW, Halls J, Lapin SA, Quinn MF, Morris UL, Boswell W.
Prospective evaluation of the sonographic Murphy sign in suspected acute cholecystitis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1982;10:1135.
23. Soyer P, Brouland JP, Boudiaf M, Kardache M, Pelage JP, Panis
Y, et al. Color velocity imaging and power Doppler sonography
of the gallbladder wall: a new look at sonographic diagnosis of
acute cholecystitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1838.
24. Indar AA, Beckingham IJ. Acute cholecystitis. BMJ. 2002;325:
63943.
25. Law C, Tandan V. Gallstone disease: surgical treatment. In:
Based Evidence, editor. Gastroenterology and hepatology. London: BMJ Books; 1999. p. 26070.
26. Cameron IC, Chadwick C, Phillips J, Johnson AG. Acute cholecystitisroom for improvement? Ann R Coll Surg Engl.
2002;84:103.
27. Noble VE, Liteplo AS, Nelson BP, Thomas SH. The impact of
analgesia on the diagnostic accuracy of the sonographic Murphys sign. Eur J Emerg Med. 2010;17:803.
28. Akriviadis EA, Hatzigavriel M, Kapnias D, Kirimlidis J, Markantas A, Garyfallos A. Treatment of biliary colic with diclofenac: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Gastroenterology. 1997;113:22531.
123
GUIDELINE
Abstract Bundles that define mandatory items or procedures to be performed in clinical practice have been
increasingly used in guidelines in recent years. Observance
of bundles enables improvement of the prognosis of target
diseases as well as guideline preparation. There were no
bundles adopted in the Tokyo Guidelines 2007, but the
updated Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13) have adopted this
useful tool. Items or procedures strongly recommended in
clinical practice have been prepared in the practical
guidelines and presented as management bundles. TG13
defined the mandatory items for the management of acute
cholangitis and acute cholecystitis. Critical parts of the
bundles in TG13 include diagnostic process, severity
K. Okamoto (&)
Department of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Yahata Hospital,
4-18-1 Nishihon-machi, Yahatahigashi-ku, Kitakyushu,
Fukuoka 805-8534, Japan
e-mail: kohji.okamot@gmail.com
M. W. Buchler
Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany
T. Takada F. Miura
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine,
Tokyo, Japan
S. M. Strasberg
Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery,
Washington University in Saint Louis School of Medicine,
Saint Louis, MO, USA
J. S. Solomkin
Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College
of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
H. A. Pitt
Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, IN, USA
O. J. Garden
Clinical Surgery, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Keywords
M. Yoshida
Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International
University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
Y. Kimura
Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastroenterological
Surgery, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine,
Sapporo, Japan
R. Higuchi
Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology,
Tokyo Womens Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
Y. Yamashita
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
T. Mayumi
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine,
Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
123
56
Introduction
A bundle is a group of therapies for a disease that, when
implemented together, may result in better outcomes than
if implemented individually. In recent years, bundles that
define mandatory items or procedures to be performed in
clinical practice have been increasingly used in guidelines
[1]. Compliance with bundles results in the preparation of
guidelines as well as an improved prognosis of targeted
diseases arising from the use of the guidelines [2, 3]. Levy
et al. [4] reported that data from 15,022 subjects at 165
sites were analyzed to determine compliance with bundle
targets and association with hospital mortality, and compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9 % in the first site quarter to 31.3 % by the
end of 2 years. Furthermore the odds ratio for mortality
improved the longer a site was in the Surviving Sepsis
Campaign, resulting in an adjusted absolute drop of 0.8 %
per quarter and 5.4 % over 2 years.
Murata et al. [5, 6] examined a total of 60,842 patients
with acute cholangitis using the Japanese national administrative database. This report demonstrated the improved
prognosis of in-hospital mortality with odds ratio of 0.856
among patients who were managed with high compliance
with the items of recommendation Grades A and B in Tokyo
Guidelines 2007 (TG07) as compared with the patients who
were low-compliance. This shows the importance of preparing bundles by setting the recommended items to be
observed in the guidelines. Although TG07 did not prepare
bundles at that time, the updated Tokyo Guidelines 2013
(TG13) have adopted the management bundles for acute
cholangitis and cholecystitis. The care bundles are designed
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Tochigi, Japan
S. Kusachi
Department of Surgery, Toho University Medical Center Ohashi
Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
S. Kiriyama
Department of Gastroenterology, Ogaki Municipal Hospital,
Ogaki, Japan
M. Yokoe
General Internal Medicine Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital,
Nagoya, Japan
W.-Y. Lau
Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Shatin, Hong Kong
M.-H. Kim
Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center,
University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea
123
57
When acute cholangitis is suspected, diagnostic assessment is made using TG13 diagnostic criteria every 612 h
2.
Abdominal X-ray (KUB) and abdominal US are carried out, followed by CT scan, MRI, MRCP and HIDA scan
3.
Severity is repeatedly assessed using severity assessment criteria; at diagnosis, within 24 h after diagnosis, and during the time zone of
2448 h
4.
As soon as a diagnosis has been made, the initial treatment is provided. The treatment is as follows: sufficient fluids replacement,
electrolyte compensation, and intravenous administration of analgesics and full dose of antimicrobial agents are provided
5.
For patients with Grade I (mild), when no response to the initial treatment is observed within 24 h, biliary tract drainage is carried out
immediately
6.
For patients with Grade II (moderate), biliary tract drainage is immediately performed along with the initial treatment. If early drainage
cannot be performed due to the lack of facilities or skilled personnel, transfer of the patient is considered
7.
For patients with Grade III (severe), urgent biliary tract drainage is performed along with the initial treatment and general supportive care.
If urgent drainage cannot be performed due to the lack of facilities or skilled personnel, transfer of the patient is considered
8.
For patient with Grade III (severe), organ supports (noninvasive/invasive positive pressure ventilation, use of vasopressors and
antimicrobial agents, etc.) are immediately performed
9.
Blood culture and/or bile culture is performed for Grade II (moderate) and III (severe) patients
10.
Treatment for etiology of acute cholangitis with endoscopic, percutaneous, or operative intervention is considered once acute illness has
resolved. Cholecystectomy should be performed for cholecystolithiasis after acute cholangitis has resolved
KUB kidneyureterbladder, US ultrasonography, CT computed tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, MRCP magnetic resonance
cholangiopancreatography, HIDA hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid
Table 2 Management bundle of acute cholecystitis
1.
When acute cholecystitis is suspected, diagnostic assessment is made using TG13 diagnostic criteria every 612 h
2.
Abdominal US is carried out, followed by HIDA scan and CT scan if needed to make the diagnosis
3.
Severity is repeatedly assessed using severity assessment criteria; at diagnosis, within 24 h after diagnosis, and during the time zone of
2448 h
4.
Take that cholecystectomy is performed into consideration, as soon as a diagnosis has been made, the initial treatment takes place involving the
replacement of sufficient fluid after fasting, electrolyte compensation, intravenous injection of analgesics and full dose antimicrobial agents
5.
For patients with Grade I (mild), cholecystectomy at an early stage within 72 h of onset of symptoms is recommended
6.
If conservative treatment patients with Grade I (mild) is selected and no response to the initial treatment is observed within 24 h, reconsider
early cholecystectomy if still within 72 h of onset of symptoms or biliary tract drainage
7.
For patients with Grade II (moderate), perform immediate biliary drainage or drainage if no early improvement (or cholecystectomy in
experienced centers) along with the initial treatment
8.
For patients with Grade II (moderate) and III (severe) at high surgical risk, biliary drainage is immediately carried out
9.
Blood culture and/or bile culture is performed for Grade II (moderate) and III (severe) patients
10.
Among patients with Grade II (moderate), for those with serious local complications including biliary peritonitis, pericholecystic abscess,
liver abscess or for those with gallbladder torsion, emphysematous cholecystitis, gangrenous cholecystitis, and purulent cholecystitis,
emergency surgery is conducted (open or laparoscopic depending on experience) along with the general supportive care of the patient. If
surgery cannot be performed due to the lack of facilities or skilled personnel, transfer of the patient is considered
11.
For patients with Grade III (severe) with jaundice and those in poor general conditions, emergency gallbladder drainage is considered with
initial therapy with antibiotics and general support measures. For patients who are found to have gallbladder stones during biliary
drainage, cholecystectomy is performed at after 3 month interval after the patients general conditions are improved
123
58
h
h
Conclusions
Table 4 Acute cholecystitis bundle checklist
h
123
None.
References
1. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM,
Jaeschke R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international
guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit
Care Med. 2008;36:296327.
2. Daniels R, Nutbeam T, McNamara G, Galvin C. The sepsis six
and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle: a prospective observational cohort study. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:50712.
3. Benneyan JC, Taseli A. Exact and approximate probability distributions of evidence-based bundle composite compliance measures. Health Care Manag Sci. 2010;13:193209.
4. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, Linde-Zwirble WT, Marshall JC, Bion J, et al. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an
international guideline-based performance improvement program
targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:22231.
5. Murata A, Matsuda S, Kuwabara K, Fujino Y, Kubo T, Fujimori
K, et al. Evaluation of compliance with the Tokyo Guidelines for
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
59
11. Berriel-Cass D, Adkins FW, Jones P, Fakih MG. Eliminating
nosocomial infections at Ascension Health. Jt Comm J Qual
Patient Saf. 2006;32:61220.
12. Crocker C, Kinnear W. Weaning from ventilation: does a care
bundle approach work? Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2008;24:1806.
13. De Miguel-Yanes JM, Andueza-Lillo JA, Gonzalez-Ramallo VJ,
Pastor L, Munoz J. Failure to implement evidence-based clinical
guidelines for sepsis at the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24:
5539.
14. McNeill G, Dixon M, Jenkins P. Can acute medicine units in the
UK comply with the Surviving Sepsis Campaigns six-hour care
bundle? Clin Med. 2008;8:1635.
15. Mayumi T, Takada T, Hirata K, Yoshida M, Sekimoto M, Hirota
M, et al. Pancreatitis bundles. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.
2010;17:879.
16. Kiriyama S, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Solomkin JS, Mayumi T,
Pitt HA, et al. New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of
acute cholangitis in revised Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:54856.
17. Yokoe M, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Solomkin JS, Mayumi T,
Gomi H, et al. New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of
acute cholecystitis in revised Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:57885.
123
GUIDELINE
therapy), provided before the infecting isolates are identified. Such therapy depends upon knowledge of both local
microbial epidemiology and patient-specific factors that
affect selection of appropriate agents. These patient-specific factors include prior contact with the health care
system, and we separate community-acquired versus
healthcare-associated infections because of the higher risk
H. Gomi (&)
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
3311-1, Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi 329-0431, Japan
e-mail: hgomi-oky@umin.ac.jp
S. Kiriyama
Department of Gastroenterology, Ogaki Municipal Hospital,
Ogaki, Japan
J. S. Solomkin
Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati
College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
T. Takada F. Miura
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine,
Tokyo, Japan
S. M. Strasberg
Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery,
Washington University in Saint Louis School of Medicine,
Saint Louis, MO, USA
H. A. Pitt
Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, IN, USA
M. Yoshida
Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International
University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
S. Kusachi
Department of Surgery, Toho University Medical Center
Ohashi Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
T. Mayumi
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine,
Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
123
M. Yokoe
General Internal Medicine, Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital,
Nagoya, Japan
Y. Kimura
Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastroenterological
Surgery, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine,
Sapporo, Japan
R. Higuchi
Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology,
Tokyo Womens Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
J. A. Windsor
Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
C. Dervenis
First Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital,
Athens, Greece
K.-H. Liau
Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Nexus Surgical
Associates, Mount Elizabeth Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
M.-H. Kim
Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center,
University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea
of resistance in the latter. Selection of agents for community-acquired infections is also recommended on the basis
of severity (grades IIII).
Free full-text articles and a mobile application of TG13 are
available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/tg13.html.
Keywords Acute cholangitis Acute cholecystitis
Antimicrobial therapy Treatment guidelines Biliary tract
infection
Introduction
Acute cholangitis and cholecystitis are common conditions
that may result in progressively severe infection, particularly in debilitated hosts. Epidemiology and risk factors for
acute cholangitis and cholecystitis are provided in a separated section of TG13: Current terminology, etiology, and
epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. The
primary goal of antimicrobial therapy in acute cholangitis
and cholecystitis is to limit both the systemic septic
response and local inflammation, to prevent surgical site
infections in the superficial wound, fascia, or organ space,
and to prevent intrahepatic abscess formation [1].
In acute cholangitis, drainage of the obstructed biliary
tree (termed source control) was recognized as the mainstay
of therapy long before the introduction of antimicrobial
agents [1]. An additional role of antimicrobial therapy,
allowing delay in operation until patients are more physiologically stable, was initially defined by Boey and Way [2].
They retrospectively reviewed 99 consecutive patients with
acute cholangitis, and reported that 53 % of their patients
who responded well to antimicrobial therapy were therefore
given elective instead of emergency operation [1, 2].
The role of antimicrobial therapy in the broad range of
diseases subsumed under the term acute cholecystitis
also varies with severity and pathology. In early and nonsevere cases, it is not obvious that bacteria play a significant role in the pathology encountered. In these patients,
antimicrobial therapy is at best prophylactic, preventing
progression to infection. In other cases, with clinical findings of a systemic inflammatory response, antimicrobial
therapy is therapeutic, and treatment may be required until
the gallbladder is removed.
Rationale for changes in these guidelines
Five years have passed since the Tokyo Guidelines were
published in 2007, and it is now referred to as TG07 [3, 4].
During the last five years, there have been several developments in the management of biliary tract infections. For
antimicrobial therapy, other guideline sources for biliary tract
infections have been revised. These include the Surviving
61
123
62
Proportions of isolated
organisms (%)
Gram-negative organisms
Escherichia coli
3144
Klebsiella spp.
Pseudomonas spp.
920
0.519
Enterobacter spp.
59
Acinetobacter spp.
Citrobacter spp.
Gram-positive organisms
Enterococcus spp.
334
Streptococcus spp.
210
Staphylococcus spp.
0a
Anaerobes
420
Others
Clinical questions
Healthcareassociated
infectionsb
Escherichia coli
3562
23
Klebsiella spp.
1228
16
Pseudomonas spp.
414
17
Gram-negative organisms
Enterobacter spp.
27
Acinetobacter spp.
Citrobacter spp.
26
Gram-positive organisms
Enterococcus spp.
1023
Streptococcus spp.
Staphylococcus spp.
69
2
5
4
Anaerobes
Others
17
11
20
cholecystitis AND Antibiotics OR Antimicrobial therapy among human studies. Sixty-five and 122 articles
were found, respectively. These references were further
narrowed using keywords Clinical trials and Randomized trials. Literature cited in the TG07 was also
reviewed and integrated for revision. If there were few data
123
Moxifloxacin
Moxifloxacin
Aztreonam metronidazoled
Aztreonam metronidazolec
Imipenem/cilastatin,
meropenem, doripenem,
ertapenem
Cefepime, or ceftazidime, or
cefozopran metronidazoled
Piperacillin/tazobactam
Healthcare-associated
cholangitis and cholecystitis
Imipenem/cilastatin,
meropenem, doripenem,
ertapenem
Cefepime, or ceftazidime, or
cefozopran metronidazoled
Piperacillin/tazobactam
Grade IIIe
Ampicillin/sulbactam has little activity left against Escherichia coli. It is removed from the North American guidelines [6]
Moxifloxacin
Ciprofloxacin, or levofloxacin, or
pazufloxacin metronidazolec
Ertapenem
Cefoperazone/sulbactam
Ceftriaxone, or cefotaxime, or
cefepime, or cefozopran, or
ceftazidime metronidazoled
Piperacillin/tazobactam
Grade II
Healthcare-associated biliary
infectionse
Vancomycin is recommended to cover Enterococcus spp. for grade III community-acquired acute cholangitis and cholecystitis, and healthcare-associated acute biliary infections. Linezolid or
daptomycin is recommended if vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) is known to be colonizing the patient, if previous treatment included vancomycin, and/or if the organism is common in
the community
Anti-anaerobic therapy, including use of metronidazole, tinidazole, or clindamycin, is warranted if a biliary-enteric anastomosis is present. The carbapenems, piperacillin/tazobactam,
ampicillin/sulbactam, cefmetazole, cefoxitin, flomoxef, and cefoperazone/sulbactam have sufficient anti-anerobic activity for this situation
Fluoroquinolone use is recommended if the susceptibility of cultured isolates is known or for patients with b-lactam allergies. Many extended-spectrum b-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Gramnegative isolates are fluoroquinolone-resistant
Ciprofloxacin, or levofloxacin, or
pazufloxacin metronidazoled
Ciprofloxacin, or levofloxacin, or
pazufloxacin metronidazoled
Fluoroquinolonebased therapyc
Cefmetazole,a Cefoxitin,a
Flomoxef,a Cefoperazone/
sulbactam
Monobactambased therapy
Cefmetazole,a Cefoxitin,a
Flomoxef,a Cefoperazone/
sulbactam
Cefazolina, or cefotiama, or
cefuroximea, or ceftriaxone, or
cefotaxime metronidazoled
Cephalosporinbased therapy
Ertapenem
Cefazolina, or cefotiama, or
cefuroximea, or ceftriaxone, or
cefotaxime metronidazoled
Ampicillin/sulbactamb is not
recommended without an
aminoglycoside
Penicillin-based
therapy
Ertapenem
Ampicillin/sulbactamb is not
recommended without an
aminoglycoside
Cholangitis
Antimicrobial
agents
Carbapenembased therapy
Cholecystitis
Grade I
Severity
123
64
to range from 7.7 to 15.8 % [28, 31]. Table 2 shows the most
recently reported microbial isolates from patients with
bacteremic biliary tract infections [14, 2830].
There is a lack of clinical trials examining the benefit of
blood cultures in patients with acute biliary tract infections.
Most of the bacteremic isolates reported (Table 2) are
organisms that do not form vegetations on normal cardiac
valves nor miliary abscesses. Their intravascular presence
does not lead to an extension of therapy or selection of
multidrug regimens. We therefore recommend such cultures be taken only in high-severity infections when such
results might mandate changes in therapy [5]. Blood cultures are not routinely recommended for grade I community-acquired acute cholecystitis (level D).
The SIS-NA/IDSA 2010 guidelines recommended
against routine blood cultures for community-acquired
intra-abdominal infections, since the results do not change
the management and outcomes [6]. This is in part driven by
a study of the clinical impact of blood cultures taken in the
emergency department [32]. In this retrospective study,
1,062 blood cultures were obtained during the study period,
of which 92 (9 %) were positive. Of the positive blood
cultures, 52 (5 %) were true positive, and only 18 (1.6 %)
resulted in altered management.
Q2. What considerations should be taken when selecting antimicrobial agents for the treatment of acute
cholangitis and cholecystitis?
When selecting antimicrobial agents, targeted organisms,
pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, local antibiogram,
a history of antimicrobial usage, renal and hepatic function,
and a history of allergies and other adverse events
should be considered (recommendation 1, level D).
We suggest anaerobic therapy if a biliary-enteric
anastomosis is present (recommendation 2, level C).
123
adjustments for altered renal and hepatic function are available in several recent publications [34, 35]. Consultation with
a clinical pharmacist is recommended if there are concerns.
Regarding the timing of therapy, it should be initiated as
soon as the diagnosis of biliary infection is suspected. For
patients in septic shock, antimicrobials should be administered within 1 h of recognition [5]. For other patients, as
long as 4 h may be spent obtaining definitive diagnostic
studies prior to beginning antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrobial therapy should definitely be started before any
procedure, either percutaneous, endoscopic, or operative, is
performed. In addition, anaerobic therapy is appropriate if
a biliary-enteric anastomosis is present (level C) [6].
Selected newer agents
Moxifloxacin has been investigated for intra-abdominal
infections in several randomized studies [3639]. It was
demonstrated that moxifloxacin is safe, well-tolerated, and
non-inferior to the comparators, such as ceftriaxone plus
metronidazole [37], or piperacillin/tazobactam followed by
amoxicillin/clavulanic acid [39]. This study was conducted
prior to the appearance of ESBL-mediated resistance [40].
There are few data specifically regarding the treatment of
acute cholangitis or cholecystitis, and resistance rates of
E. coli and other common Enterobacteriacae to fluoroquinolones have risen [714].
Tigecycline was under clinical trials for approval during
preparation of the manuscript, and is now approved for clinical use in Japan. Tigecycline has in-vitro activity against a
wide range of clinically significant Gram-positive and Gramnegative bacteria [41]. These include multidrug-resistant
Gram-positive cocci such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp.
For Gram-negative bacilli, ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are susceptible, as are most anaerobes. Tigecycline has
no activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Tigecycline has
been investigated for skin and soft tissue infections and
complicated intra-abdominal infections [41]. Tigecycline
causes nausea and vomiting in approximately 1020 % of
patients, and is dose-related. This limits the dose that can be
routinely administered and suggests only a secondary role for
this agent, in the event of unusual pathogens or allergy to
other classes of antimicrobial agents. Recent meta-analyses
have demonstrated an increased mortality rate and treatment
failure rate in randomized trials with this agent [42].
Antimicrobial agents appropriate for use
in the management of community-acquired acute
cholangitis and cholecystitis
Table 3 summarizes antimicrobial recommendations. It
should be kept in mind that in the treatment of cholangitis,
source control (i.e., drainage) is an essential part of management. The indications and timing for drainage are
provided in the severity and flowchart of the management
sections regarding acute cholangitis. Since 2005, there
have been no randomized clinical trials of antimicrobial
therapy for community-acquired acute cholangitis and/or
acute cholecystitis. There have been multiple reports on
clinical isolates with multiple drug resistance from intraabdominal infections worldwide, and biliary infections in
particular [714, 40].
Recommendations for antimicrobial therapy are based
primarily upon extrapolations of microbiological efficacy
and behavior of these agents against the more susceptible
isolates treated in the clinical trials cited [3639, 4349].
Some concerns about this approach to defining efficacy
against resistant isolates has been raised [50].
The use of severity of illness as a guide to antimicrobial
agent selection has been questioned in the face of the
increasing numbers of ESBL-producing E. coli and Klebsiella in the community. These organisms are not reliably
susceptible to cephalosporins, penicillin derivatives, or
fluoroquinolones. Previous guidelines have recommended
that if more than 1020 % of community isolates of E. coli
are so resistant, then empiric coverage should be provided
for these organisms until susceptibility data demonstrates
sensitivity to narrower spectrum agents. Carbapenems,
piperacillin/tazobactam, tigecycline, or amikacin may also
be used to treat these isolates [6].
For grade III community-acquired acute cholangitis and
cholecystitis, agents with anti-pseudomonal activities are
recommended as initial therapy (empirical therapy) until
causative organisms are identified. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is present in approximately 20 % of recent series [14,
27], and is a known virulent pathogen. Failure to empirically cover this organism in critically ill patients may result
in excess mortality.
Enterococcus spp. is another important pathogen for
consideration in patients with grade III communityacquired acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Vancomycin
is recommended to cover Enterococcus spp. for patients
with grade III community-acquired acute cholangitis and/
or cholecystitis, until the results of cultures are available.
Ampicillin can be used if isolated strains of Enterococcus
spp. are susceptible to ampicillin. Ampicillin covers most
of the strains of Enterococcus faecalis from communityacquired infections in general. For Enterococcus faecium,
vancomycin is the drug of choice for empirical therapy.
However, in many hospitals, vancomycin-resistant
Enterococcus spp., both E. faecium and E. faecalis, have
emerged as important causes of infection. Treatment for
these organisms requires either linezolid or daptomycin.
Surgeons and other physicians making treatment decisions
for patients with healthcare-associated infections should be
65
Antimicrobial agents
Penicillin
Ampicillin/sulbactam
Cephalosporins
Cefazolin
Cefuroxime
Cefotiam
Cefoxitin
Cefmetazole
Flomoxef
Ceftriaxonea or cefotaximea
Fluoroquinolones
Ciprofloxacin
Levofloxacin
Moxifloxacin
References [411]
a
This resistance indicates the global spread of extended-spectrum blactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae
123
66
Fluoroquinolone use is only recommended if the susceptibility of cultured isolates is known since antimicrobial
resistance has been increasing significantly [714]. This
agent can also be used as an alternative agent for patients
with b-lactam allergies.
Antimicrobial agents appropriate for use
in the management of healthcare-associated acute
cholangitis and cholecystitis
There is no evidence to support any agent as optimal
treatment of healthcare-associated acute cholangitis and
cholecystitis. The principles of empirical therapy of healthcare-associated infections include using agents with antipseudomonal activity until definitive causative organisms are
found. This paradigm is now expanded to include empirical
coverage for ESBL-producing Gram-negative organisms
based on local microbiological findings (local antibiogram).
Table 3 shows empirical agents (presumptive therapy) for
healthcare-associated acute cholangitis and cholecystitis.
Vancomycin is recommended when patients are colonized
with resistant Gram-positive bacteria such as methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus and/or Enterococcus spp. or
when these multidrug-resistant Gram-positives are of concern. Staphylococcus aureus is not as common an isolate for
acute biliary infections as Enterococcus spp. Vancomycinresistant Enterococcus (VRE) should be covered empirically
with linezolid or daptomycin if this organism is known to be
colonizing the patient, if previous treatment included vancomycin, and/or if the organism is common in the community.
Regarding anaerobes such as the Bacteroides fragilis
group, we suggest to cover these organisms empirically in
the presence of a biliary-enteric anastomosis (level C) [6].
Is it necessary for agents used in acute biliary infections
to be concentrated in bile?
Historically, biliary penetration of agents has been considered in the selection of antimicrobial agents. However, there
is considerable laboratory and clinical evidence that as
obstruction occurs, secretion of antimicrobial agents into bile
stops [1]. Well-designed randomized clinical trials comparing agents with or without good biliary penetration are needed to determine the clinical relevance and significance of
biliary penetration in treating acute biliary infections.
How should highly resistant causative organisms be
managed in treating acute cholangitis and cholecystitis?
The major microbiological phenomenon of the last decade has
been the emergence of novel b-lactamase-mediated resistance
mechanisms in Enterobacteriaceae. These have been seen in
intra-abdominal infections worldwide [719, 27]. These
123
67
Once susceptibility testing results of causative microorganisms are available, specific therapy (or definitive therapy) should be offered. This process is called de-escalation
[5]. Agents in Table 4 can be used safely once the susceptibility is proven.
Duration of treatment of patients with clinical
and laboratory success
The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for community-acquired and healthcare-associated acute cholangitis
and cholecystitis has not been determined in well-designed
randomized controlled studies. Whether the source of
infection (i.e., biliary obstruction) is well controlled or not is
critical in determining the duration of therapy. In addition,
recent technological advances for biliary drainage have
Severity
Grade I
Diagnosis
Cholecystitis
Cholangitis
Duration of
therapy
If residual stones or obstruction of the bile tract are present, treatment should be
continued until these anatomical problems are resolved
Specific
conditions
for
extended
therapy
Grade II
Grade III
Cholangitis
and
cholecystitis
Cholangitis
and
cholecystitis
123
68
Table 6 Representative oral antimicrobial agents for communityacquired and healthcare-associated acute cholangitis and cholecystitis
with susceptible isolates
Antimicrobial agents
Cephalosporins
Cefazolin
Antimicrobial class
Antimicrobial agents
Penicillins
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid
Cefoxitin
Cephalosporins
Cephalexin metronidazolea
Cefmetazole
Fluoroquinolones
Ciprofloxacin or
levofloxacin metronidazolea
Moxifloxacin
Flomoxef
Piperacillina
Penicillins
Piperacillin/tazobactama
prophylaxis with ERCP is recommended [57]. As consensus statements, the guidelines [57] recommended the
standard prophylaxis regimen to prevent infective endocarditis. The regimen includes amoxicillin or clindamycin
orally, or ampicillin or cefazolin as intravenous agents, and
vancomycin for patients with b-lactam allergies to prevent
infective endocarditis. However, the regimens for preventing cholangitis and bacteremia due to obstructive biliary tract were not included.
Recent meta-analyses [56, 58] had conflicting conclusions regarding the effectiveness of prophylactic therapy
before elective ERCP. Bai et al. concluded that prophylaxic
agents cannot prevent cholangitis [58], while a Cochrane
review indicated that prophylaxic antimicrobial therapy
before elective ERCP reduces the incidence of bacteremia
[relative risk (RR) 0.50], cholangitis (RR 0.54), and pancreatitis (RR 0.54) [56]. However, overall mortality was
not reduced with prophylaxis before elective ERCP [RR
1.33, confidence interval (CI) 0.325.44]. In this review,
the numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent bacteremia
(NNT = 11) and cholangitis (NNT = 38) were also demonstrated. The Cochrane review concluded that further
studies are needed, including randomized placebocontrolled studies, to investigate the effectiveness of
prophylaxis for elective ERCP with low risk of bias,
randomized comparison of the timing of administration of
prophylaxis (before vs. during or after ERCP), and randomized head-to-head comparison of antimicrobial agents
as prophylactic therapy with elective ERCP [56].
Antimicrobial agents investigated with elective ERCP
include minocycline orally [59], piperacillin [60, 61],
clindamycin plus gentamicin [62], cefuroxime [63], cefotaxime [64, 65], and ceftazidime [66].
In the TG13, antimicrobial prophylactic agents appropriate for use in preventing cholangitis or bacteremia due to
biliary tract obstruction are provided on a consensus basis.
Table 7 lists those agents. Cefazolin or other narrowerspectrum cephalosporins can be used as prophylactic
agents. Cefazolin is one of the agents for preventing
infective endocarditis with endoscopy and a convenient
agent to be used to prevent both endocarditis and
123
Anti-pseudomonal agents
Conclusions
Antimicrobial agents should be used prudently while promoting antimicrobial stewardship in each institution, local
area, and country. The recent global spread of antimicrobial
resistance gives us warning in current practice. TG13 provides a practical guide for physicians and surgeons who are
involved in the management of community-acquired and
healthcare-associated acute biliary infections. There are still
many areas of uncertainty in this subject. Continuous monitoring of local antimicrobial resistance and further studies
on acute cholangitis and cholecystitis should be warranted.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
1. van den Hazel SJ, Speelman P, Tytgat GNJ, Dankert J, van
Leeuwen DJ. Role of antibiotics in the treatment and prevention of
acute and recurrent cholangitis. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;19:27986.
69
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Serratia marcescens, Citrobacter freundii and Morganella morganii in Korea. Eur J Clin Microb Infect Dis. 2007;26:55761.
Kang CI, Cheong H, Chung D, Peck K, Song JH, Oh MD, et al.
Clinical features and outcome of community-onset bloodstream
infections caused by extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing
Escherichia coli. Eur J Clin Microb Infect Dis. 2008;27:858.
Kumarasamy KK, Toleman MA, Walsh TR, Bagaria J, Butt F,
Balakrishnan R, et al. Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance
mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular, biological,
and epidemiological study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:597602.
Peirano G, van der Bij AK, Gregson DB, Pitout JDD. Molecular
epidemiology over an 11-year period (2000 to 2010) of extendedspectrum b-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli causing bacteremia in a centralized Canadian region. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;
50:2949.
Kune G, Schutz E. Bacteria in the biliary tract. A study of their
frequency and type. Med J Aust. 1974;1:2558.
Csendes A, Fernandez M, Uribe P. Bacteriology of the gallbladder bile in normal subjects. Am J Surg. 1975;129:62931.
Csendes A, Becerra M, Burdiles P, Demian I, Bancalari K, Csendes
P. Bacteriological studies of bile from the gallbladder in patients
with carcinoma of the gallbladder, cholelithiasis, common bile duct
stones and no gallstones disease. Eur J Surg. 1994;160:3637.
Csendes A, Burdiles P, Maluenda F, Diaz J, Csendes P, Mitru N.
Simultaneous bacteriologic assessment of bile from gallbladder
and common bile duct in control subjects and patients with gallstones and common duct stones. Arch Surg. 1996;131:38994.
Csendes A, Mitru N, Maluenda F, Diaz J, Burdiles P, Csendes P,
Pinones E. Counts of bacteria and pyocites of choledochal bile in
controls and in patients with gallstones or common bile duct
stones with or without acute cholangitis. Hepatogastroenterology.
1996;43:8006.
Maluenda F, Csendes A, Burdiles P, Diaz J. Bacteriological study
of choledochal bile in patients with common bile duct stones,
with or without acute suppurative cholangitis. Hepatogastroenterology. 1989;36:1325.
Chang W, Lee K, Wang S, Chuang S, Kuo K, Chen J, Sheen P.
Bacteriology and antimicrobial susceptibility in biliary tract disease: an audit of 10-years experience. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2002;
18:2218.
Salvador V, Lozada M, Consunji R. Microbiology and antibiotic
susceptibility of organisms in bile cultures from patients with and
without cholangitis at an Asian Academic Medical Center. Surg
Infect. 2011;12:10511.
Kuo CH CC, Chen JJ, Tai DI, Chiou SS, Lee CM. Septic acute
cholecystitis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995;30:2725
Melzer M, Toner R, Lacey S, Bettany E, Rait G. Biliary tract
infection and bacteremia: presentation, structural abnormalities,
causative organisms and clinical outcomes. Postgrad Med J.
2007;83:7736.
Lee CC, Chang IJ, Lai Y-C, Chen S-Y, Chen S-C. Epidemiology and prognostic determinants of patients with bacteremic
cholecystitis or cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:5639.
Baitello AL, Colleoni Neto R, Herani Filho B, Cordeiro JA,
Machado AMO, Godoy MF, et al. Prevalencia e fatores associados a` bacteremia nos portadores de colecistite aguda litiasica.
Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira. 2004;50:3739.
Kelly AM. Clinical impact of blood cultures taken in the emergency department. J Accid Emerg Med. 1998;15:2546.
Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollman BC, editors. Goodman and
Gilmans the pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 12th edition.
New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies; 2011.
Amsden G. Chapter 49, Tables of antimicrobial agent pharmacology. In: Mandell G, Bennett J, Dolin R, editors. Principles and
practice of infectious diseases, 7th edition, Volume 1. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, Elsevier; 2010. p. 70561.
123
70
35. McKenzie C. Antibiotic dosing in critical illness. J Antimicrob
Chemother. 2011;66 (suppl 2):ii2531.
36. Goldstein EJ, Solomkin JS, Citron DM, Alder JD. Clinical efficacy and correlation of clinical outcomes with in vitro susceptibility for anaerobic bacteria in patients with complicated intraabdominal infections treated with moxifloxacin. Clin Infect Dis.
2011;53:107480.
37. Solomkin J, Zhao YP, Ma EL, Chen MJ, DRAGON Study Team.
Moxifloxacin is non-inferior to combination therapy with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole in patients with community-origin
complicated intra-abdominal infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents.
2009;34:43945.
38. Weiss G, Reimnitz P, Hampel B, Muehlhofer E, AIDA Study
Group. Moxifloxacin for the treatment of patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (the AIDA Study). J Chemother.
2009;21:17080.
39. Malangoni MA, Song J, Herrington J, Choudhri S, Pertel P.
Randomized controlled trial of moxifloxacin compared with
piperacillin-tazobactam and amoxicillin-clavulanate for the
treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg.
2006;244:20411.
40. Schultsz C, Geerlings S. Plasmid-mediated resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: changing landscape and implications for therapy.
Drugs. 2012;72:116.
41. Doan TL, Fung HB, Mehta D, Riska PF. Tigecycline: a glycylcycline antimicrobial agent. Clin Ther. 2006;28:1079106.
42. Prasad P, Sun J, Danner RL, Natanson C. Excess deaths associated with tigecycline after approval based on non-inferiority trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:16991709.
43. Muller E, Pitt HA, Thompson JE Jr, Doty J, Mann L, Manchester
B. Antibiotics in infections of the biliary tract. Surg Gynecol
Obstet. 1987;165:28592.
44. Gerecht W, Henry N, Hoffman W, Muller S, LaRusso N, Rosenblatt J, Wilson W. Prospective randomized comparison of
mezlocillin therapy alone with combined ampicillin and gentamicin therapy for patients with cholangitis. Arch Intern Med.
1989;149:127984.
45. Thompson JE Jr, Pitt HA, Doty J, Coleman J, Irving C. Broad
spectrum penicillin as an adequate therapy for acute cholangitis.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1990;171:27582.
46. Chacon J, Criscuolo P, Kobata C, Ferraro J, Saad S, Reis C. Prospective randomized comparison of pefloxacin and ampicillin plus
gentamicin in the treatment of bacteriologically proven biliary tract
infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;26,Suppl B:16772.
47. Thompson JE Jr, Bennion R, Roettger R, Lally K, Hopkins J,
Wilson SE. Cefepime for infections of the biliary tract. Surg
Gynecol Obstet. 1993;177 Suppl:304. discussion 3540.
48. Yellin AE, Berne TV, Appleman MD, Heseltine PN, Gill MA,
Okamoto MP, Baker FJ, Holcomb C. A randomized study of cefepime versus the combination of gentamicin and mezlocillin as an
adjunct to surgical treatment in patients with acute cholecystitis.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;177 Suppl:2329; discussion 3540.
49. Sung J, Lyon D, Suen R, Chung S, Co A, Cheng A, Leung J, et al.
Intravenous ciprofloxacin as treatment for patients with acute
suppurative cholangitis: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995;35:85564.
50. Powers JH. Editorial commentary: Asking the right questions:
morbidity, mortality and measuring whats important in unbiased
evaluations of antimicrobials. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:17101713.
51. Kumarasamy KK, Toleman MA, Walsh TR, Bagaria J, Butt F,
Balakrishnan R, et al. Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance
mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular, biological,
and epidemiological study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:597602.
123
GUIDELINE
Abstract The Tokyo Guidelines of 2007 (TG07) described the techniques and recommendations of biliary
decompression in patients with acute cholangitis. TG07
recommended that endoscopic transpapillary biliary
drainage should be selected as a first-choice therapy for
acute cholangitis because it is associated with a low mortality rate and shorter duration of hospitalization. However,
TG07 did not include the whole technique of standard
endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage, for example,
biliary cannulation techniques including contrast medium-
assisted cannulation, wire-guided cannulation, and treatment of duodenal major papilla using endoscopic papillary
balloon dilation (EPBD). Furthermore, recently singleor double-balloon enteroscopy-assisted biliary drainage
(BE-BD) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary
drainage (EUS-BD) have been reported as special techniques for biliary drainage. Nevertheless, the updated
Tokyo Guidelines (TG13) recommends that endoscopic
drainage should be first-choice treatment for biliary
decompression in patients with non-surgically altered
anatomy and suggests that the choice of cannulation technique or drainage method (endoscopic naso-biliary drainage and stenting) depends on the endoscopists preference
but EST should be selected rather than EPBD from the
G. Belli
General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy
T. Mayumi
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine,
Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
M. Yoshida
Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International
University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
M. W. Buchler
Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Germany
D. J. Gouma
Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
H. A. Pitt
Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, IN, USA
O. J. Garden
Clinical Surgery, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
M.-H. Kim
Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center,
University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea
P. Jagannath
Department of Surgical Oncology, Lilavati Hospital and
Research Centre, Mumbai, India
123
72
aspect of procedure-related complications. In terms of BEBD and EUS-BD, although there are many reports on the
their usefulness, they should be performed by skilled endoscopists in high-volume institutes, who are good at enteroscopy or echoendosonography, respectively, because
procedures and devices are not yet established.
Free full-text articles and a mobile application of TG13
are available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/tg13.
html.
Keywords Cholangitis Percutaneous biliary drainage
Endoscopic biliary drainage Endoscopic cholangiopancreatography Guidelines
Introduction
Acute cholangitis varies in severity, ranging from a mild form
which can be treated by conservative therapy to a severe form
which leads to a life-threatening state, e.g. shock state and
altered sensorium. In particular, the severe form often results in
mortality in the elderly [13]. Biliary drainage, which is the
most essential therapy for acute cholangitis, is divided into
three types, surgical, percutaneous transhepatic, and endoscopic drainage. Of these therapies, it is well known that surgical intervention leads to the highest mortality rate [1].
Recently, mortality due to acute cholangitis has decreased due
to development of percutaneous transhepatic cholangial
drainage (PTCD) [4] and endoscopic biliary drainage [5, 6].
Nevertheless, acute cholangitis can still be fatal unless it is
treated in a timely way. The Tokyo Guidelines of 2007 (TG07)
described the fundamental biliary drainage techniques for acute
cholangitis [7]. Subsequently, new biliary drainage techniques
for the therapy of acute cholangitis have been reported. Herein,
we describe the indications and techniques of biliary drainage
for acute cholangitis in the updated Tokyo Guidelines (TG13).
123
Surgical drainage
Indications
In benign diseases like bile duct stones, surgical drainage is
extremely rare because of the prevalence of endoscopic
drainage or PTCD for the therapy of acute cholangitis.
However, in patients with acute cholangitis due to unresectable neoplasms like cancer of the pancreatic head,
hepaticojejunostomy can be performed as bypass surgery
only in limited patients without severe acute cholangitis. In
particular, when periampullary neoplastic lesions like
cancer of the pancreatic head or ampullary cancer, show
both acute cholangitis and duodenal obstruction, double
bypass surgery, hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy, may be a rare choice.
Techniques
Open drainage for decompression of the bile duct is performed as a surgical intervention. When surgical drainage
in critically ill patients with bile duct stones is performed,
prolonged operations should be avoided and simple procedures, such as T-tube placement without choledocholithotomy, are recommended [13].
73
123
74
Fig. 1 Precutting technique. a Needle knife precutting using needletype sphincterotome. Bile duct orifice is opened by precutting.
b Schema of pancreatic sphincter precutting. Cutting wire is bowed
toward the bile duct direction
123
75
Table 1 Comparison of results between ENBD and stent placement in acute cholangitis cases
References
Method
Lee [22]
ENBD
40
RCT
100
85100
3.9 (2.7)
Yes
Sharma [23]
EBS
34
ENBD
74
2.5
12
2.7
p = 0.02
98
8292a
99
100
1.8 (2.6)
Yes
Park [24]
VAS
N/A
EBS
73
98
ENBD
41
100
100
86100b
EBS
39
100
80100b
No
2.7
32
39
N/A
ENBD endoscopic naso-biliary drainage, EBS endoscopic biliary stenting, RCT randomized controlled trial, VAS visual analog scale [mean
(SD)], N/A not applicable
a
Indications
Techniques
EST technique is usually used for stone removal and, at
times, prevention of the occlusion of the pancreatic duct
orifice by placement of a large-bore biliary stent (more than
10-Fr or a self-expandable metal stent).
Q4. Is EST necessary in endoscopic biliary drainage?
We suggest that addition of EST should be determined
according to the patients condition and the operators
skill (recommendation 2, level C).
We suggest that EST followed by stone removal without
biliary drainage can be recommended as an alternative
procedure in patients with choledocholithiasis - induced
acute cholangitis (recommendation 2, level C).
123
76
Indications
Special techniques of endoscopic biliary drainage
The EPBD procedure is usually used instead of EST for
removal of bile duct stones [28]. Until now, there has been
no comparative study on the use of EPBD during biliary
123
77
Technical success
(1st attempt) (%)
Adverse
events (%)
Itoi [30]
11
72
None
Saleem [31]
56
91
None
Wang [32]
12
90
17
Total
79
89
2.50
Mehdizadeh [34]
Technical success
(1st attempt) (%)
Adverse
events (%)
40
None
Emmett [35]
14
80
None
Aabakken [36]
13
85
None
67
None
Masser [37]
Kuga [38]
83
None
Pohl [39]
15
87
None
Shimatani [40]
68
96
Tsujino [41]
12
94
17
67
None
151
86
3.3
Itoi [42]
Total
Fig. 4 Balloon enteroscope-assisted ERCP. a ERCP in esophagojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y patient. b ERCP in hepaticojejunostomy
with Roux-en-Y patient
123
78
No. of
cases
Technical
success (%)
Clinical
success (%)
Complications
(%)
EUS-guided
IHBD
drainage
HES 4
100
100
25
16
EUS-guided
EHBD
drainage
HGS 50
96
98
HJS 4
75
100
CDS 61
95
100
16
CGS 6
100
100
17
IHBD intrahepatic bile duct, EHBD extrahepatic bile duct, HES hepaticoesophagostomy, HGS hepaticogastrostomy, HJS hepaticojejunostomy, CDS choledochoduodenostomy, CGS choledochogastrostomy
bile duct drainage (Fig. 5a) by a transesophageal, transgastric or transjejunal approach; (2) EUS-guided extrahepatic bile duct drainage (Fig. 5b) by a transduodenal or
transgastric approach. The choice of drainage route
depends on the presence of a gastric outlet obstruction and
the stricture site of the bile duct. Several published data on
EUS-guided intrahepatic bile duct drainage and extrahepatic bile duct drainage show that the success rate is high
(95 %), with 93100 % (intention-to-treat) response rates
(Table 4) [4354]. Most of the reported cases of adverse
events were pneumoperitonitis but there was no serious
adverse event. However, since the procedure is not yet
established, it should be conducted by endoscopists skilled
in both echoendosonography and ERCP.
Techniques [55] (supplement video 6 and video 7)
123
None.
References
1. Reynolds BM, Dargan EL. Acute obstructive cholangitis. A
distinct syndrome. Ann Surg. 1959;150:299303.
2. OConnor MJ, Schwartz ML, McQuarrie DG, Sumer HW. Acute
bacterial cholangitis: an analysis of clinical manifestation. Arch
Surg. 1982;117:43741.
3. Welch JP, Donaldson GA. The urgency of diagnosis and surgical
treatment of acute suppurative cholangitis. Am J Surg. 1976;131:
52732.
4. Takada T, Hanyu F, Kobayashi S, Uchida Y. Percutaneous
transhepatic cholangial drainage: direct approach under fluoroscopic control. J Surg Oncol. 1976;8:8397.
5. Nagai N, Toki F, Oi I, Suzuki H, Kozu T. Continuous endoscopic
pancreatocholedochal catheterization. Gastrointest Endosc. 1976;
23:7881.
6. Sohendra N, Reynders-Frederix V. Palliative bile duct drainage.
A new endoscopic method of introducing a transpapillary drain.
Endoscopy. 1980;12:811.
7. Tsuyuguchi T, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Wada K,
Nagino M, et al. Techniques of biliary drainage for acute
cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14(1):3545. (clinical practice guidelines:CPGs).
8. Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, Lo CM, Fan ST, You KT, et al.
Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis. N Engl J
Med. 1992;24:15826.
9. Leung JW, Chung SC, Sung JJ, Banez VP, Li AK. Urgent
endoscopic drainage for acute suppurative cholangitis. Lancet.
1989;10:13079.
10. Boender J, Nix GA, de Ridder MA, Dees J, Schutte HE, van
Buuren HF, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and biliary drainage in patients with cholangitis due to common bile duct stones.
Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:2338.
11. Lau JY, Chung SC, Leung JW, Ling TK, Yung MY, Li AK.
Endoscopic drainage aborts endotoxaemia in acute cholangitis.
Br J Surg. 1996;83:1814.
12. Saad WE, Wallace MJ, Wojak JC, Kundu S, Cardella JF. Quality
improvement guidelines for percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, biliary drainage, and percutaneous cholecystostomy.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:78995.
13. Saltzstein EC, Peacock JB, Mercer LC. Early operation for acute
biliary tract stone disease. Surgery. 1983;94:7048.
14. Khashab MA, Tariq A, Tariq U, Kim K, Ponor L, Lennon AM,
et al. Delayed and unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are associated with worse outcomes in patients
with acute cholangitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:
115761
15. Nagino M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Yamashita Y,
Tsuyuguchi T, et al. Methods and timing of biliary drainage for
acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat
Surg. 2007;14(1):6877. (CPGs)
16. Cheung J, Tsoi KK, Quan WL, Lau JY, Sung JJ. Guidewire
versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct
for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:12119.
79
17. Cennamo V, Fuccio L, Zagari RM, Eusebi LH, Ceroni L, Laterza
L, et al. Can a wire-guided cannulation technique increase bile
duct cannulation rate and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis?: a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:234350.
18. Manbu T, Ukita T, Shigoka H, Omuta S, Maetani I. Wire-guided
selective cannulation of the bile duct with a sphincterotome: a
prospective randomized comparative study with standard method.
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:10915.
19. Kawakami H, Maguchi H, Mukai T, Hayashi T, Sasaki T, Isayama H, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized study of
selective bile duct cannulation performed by multiple endoscopists: the BIDMEN study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:36272.
20. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME,
Dorsher PJ, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:90918.
21. Testoni PA, Mariani A, Giussani A, Vailati C, Masci E, Macarri
G, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high- and lowvolume centers and among expert and non-expert operators: a
prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:
175361.
22. Lee DW, Chan AC, Lam YH, Ng EK, Lau JY, Law BK, et al.
Biliary decompression by nasobiliary catheter or biliary stent in
acute suppurative cholangitis: a prospective randomized trial.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:3615.
23. Sharma BC, Kumar R, Agarwal N, Sarin SK. Endoscopic biliary
drainage by nasobiliary drain or by stent placement in patients
with acute cholangitis. Endoscopy. 2005;37:43943.
24. Park SY, Park CH, Cho SB, Yoon KW, Lee WS, Kim HS, et al.
The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic biliary decompression
by plastic stent placement in acute suppurative cholangitis compared with nasobiliary drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:
107680.
25. Lee JK, Lee SH, Kang BK, Kim JH, Koh MS, Yang CH, et al. Is
it necessary to insert a nasobiliary drainage tube routinely after
endoscopic clearance of the common bile duct in patients with
choledocholithiasis-induced cholangitis? A prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:10510.
26. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. The benefits of endoscopic nasobiliary
drainage without sphincterotomy for acute cholangitis. Am J
Gastroenterol. 1998;93:20658.
27. Hui CK, Lai KC, Yuen MF, Ng M, Chan CK, Hu W, et al. Does
the addition of endoscopic sphincterotomy to stent insertion
improve drainage of the bile duct in acute suppurative cholangitis? Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:5004.
28. Komatsu Y, Kawabe T, Toda N, Ohashi M, Isayama M, Tateishi
K, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of common bile duct stones: experience of 226 cases.
Endoscopy. 1998;30:127.
29. Weinberg BM, Shindy W, Lo S. Endoscopic balloon sphincter
dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common
bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):
CD004890.
30. Itoi T, Ishii K, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Tsuchiya T, Kurihara T, et al.
Single balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in 206 patients with
Billroth II gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y anastomosis (with video).
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:939.
31. Saleem A, Baron TH, Gostout C, Topazian MD, Levy MJ,
Petersen BT, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a single-balloon enteroscope in patients with altered
Roux-en-Y anatomy. Endoscopy. 2010;42:65660.
32. Wang AY, Sauer BG, Behm BW, Ramanath M, Cox DG, Ellen
KL, et al. Single-balloon enteroscopy effectively enables diagnostic and therapeutic retrograde cholangiography in patients
with surgically altered anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:
6419.
123
80
33. Haruta H, Yamamoto H, Mizuta K, Kita Y, Uno T, Egami S, et al.
A case of successful enteroscopic balloon dilation for late anastomotic stricture of choledochoduodenostomy after living donor
liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2005;11:160810.
34. Mehdizadeh S, Ross A, Gerson L, Leighton J, Chen A, Schembre
D, et al. What is the learning curve associated with double-balloon enteroscopy? Technical details and early experience in 6
U.S. teriary care centers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:74050.
35. Emmett DS, Mallat DB. Double-balloon ERCP in patients who
have undergone Roux-en-Y surgery: a case series. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2007;66:103841.
36. Aabakken L, Bretthauer M, Line PD. Double-balloon enteroscopy for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with
a Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Endoscopy. 2007;39:106871.
37. Masser C, Lenze F, Bokemeyer M, Ullerich H, Domagk D,
Bruewer M, et al. Double balloon enteroscopy: a useful tool for
diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the pancreaticobiliary
system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:894900.
38. Kuga R, Furuya CK Jr, Hondo FY, Ide E, Ishioka S, Sakai P.
ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with Rouxen-Y anatomy. Dig Dis. 2008;26:3305.
39. Pohl J, May A, Aschmoeneit I, Ell C. Double-balloon endoscopy
for retrograde cholangiography in patients with choledochojejunostomy and Roux-en-Y reconstruction [Germany with English
abstract]. Z Gastroenterol. 2009;47:2159.
40. Shimatani M, Matsushita M, Takaoka M, Koyabu M, Ikeura T,
Kato K, et al. Effective shortdouble-balloon enteroscope for
diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy: a large case series. Endoscopy. 2009;41:
84954.
41. Tsujino T, Yamada A, Isayama H, et al. Experiences of biliary
interventions using short double-balloon enteroscopy in patients
with Roux-en-Y anastomosis or hepaticojejunostomy. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:211216.
42. Itoi T, Ishii K, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Tsuchiya T, Kurihara T, et al.
Long and short type double-balloon enteroscopy-assisted therapeutic ERCP for intact papilla in patients with a Roux-en-Y
anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2011 25:71321.
43. Burmester E, Niehaus J, Leineweber T, Huetteroth T. EUS-cholangio-drainage of the bile duct: report of 4 cases. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2003;57:24651.
44. Giovannini M, Dotti M, Bories E, Moutardier V, Pesenti C,
Danisi C, et al. Hepaticogastrostomy by echo-endoscopy as a
123
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
GUIDELINE
123
82
Introduction
The Tokyo Guidelines (TG07) defined diagnostic criteria
and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis in January
2007[1]. In the TG07, percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) should be used in patients with
grade II (moderate) cholecystitis only when they do not
respond to conservative treatment and for patients with
grade III (severe) disease [2]. One controlled study (level
C) [3] compared PTGBD with medical treatment alone and
did not find lower mortality using PTGBD, but this study
has several serious limitations as follows; (1) selection bias
[the PTGBD group had many intensive care unit (ICU)
patients] , (2) drainage methods were changed after a fatal
complication, (3) randomization was achieved using a
playing card and was not blinded. Thus, PTGBD, which
has been endorsed by many studies of case-series but not
by proper controlled trials (level C) [414], is the most
common gallbladder drainage method for elderly and
critically ill patients. There are several alternatives to
PTGBD. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration
(PTGBA) is an alternative in which the gallbladder contents are puncture-aspirated without placing a drainage
catheter (level C) [6, 15]. Endoscopic naso-biliary gall-
K. Okamoto
Department of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Yahata Hospital,
Kitakyushu, Japan
Y. Yamashita
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
T. Gabata
Department of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate
School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan
J. Hata
Department of Endoscopy and Ultrasound, Kawasaki Medical
School, Okayama, Japan
S. Kusachi
Department of Surgery, Toho University Medical Center Ohashi
Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
123
83
Table 1 A critical comparison of drainage methods for acute cholecystitis according to GRADE system [17]
Drainage methoda
Technical
difficulty
Patient values
and preferences
Cost
PTGBD
B (moderate)
Very good
No
Yes
Low cost
PTGBA
C (low)
No
No
ENGBD/EGBS
Surgical cholecystostomy
C (low)
C (low)
Yes (difficult)
No
Yes/no
Yes
Low cost
High cost
123
84
Fig. 1 Percutaneous
transhepatic gallbladder
drainage (PTGBD) procedure.
A guidewire is inserted into the
gallbladder after a needle is
inserted into the gallbladder
(left). Then a drainage tube is
passed over the guide-wire into
the gallbladder (right)
Fig. 2 Percutaneous
transhepatic gallbladder
aspiration (PTGBA) procedure.
Under ultrasound guidance, the
gallbladder is punctured
transhepatically by a needle
(left). Then bile is aspirated by
using a syringe (right)
123
85
are placed (for example in Mirizzis syndrome), an endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy is performed to prevent postERCP pancreatitis.
Q2. What are the special techniques as gallbladder
drainage?
123
86
No. of
cases
NGD/
Stenting
Approach
route
Technical
success
(%)
Clinical
success
(%)
Baron [39]
PS
TD
100
100
None
Kwan [37]
NGD
TD
100
100
Lee [38]
Takasawa [40]
9
1
NGD
PS
TD
TG
100
100
100
100
Pneumoperitoneum (1)
None
Kamata [46]
SEMS
TD
100
100
None
Song [41]
PS
1TG/7TD
100
100
Itoi [42]
PS
1TG/1TD
100
100
Jang [43]
15
SEMS
10TG/5TD
100
100
None
Itoi [44]
SEMS
1TG/4TD
100
100
None
Jang [45]
30
NGD
NA
97
100
Pneumoperitoneum (2)
SEMS self-expandable metal stent, PS plastic stent, NGD naso-gallbladder drain, TD transduodenal approach, TG transgastric approach, NA not
available
a
123
None.
References
1. Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Miura F, Hirata K,
et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14:7882.
2. Tsuyuguchi T, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Wada K,
Nagino M, et al. Techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.
2007;14:4651 (clinical practice guidelines, CPGs).
3. Hatzidakis AA, Prassopoulos P, Petinarakis I, Sanidas E, Chrysos
E, Chalkiadakis G, et al. Acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients:
percutaneous cholecystostomy vs conservative treatment. Eur
Radiol. 2002;12:177884 (CPGs).
4. Kiviniemi H, Makela JT, Autio R, Tikkakoski T, Leinonen S,
Siniluoto T, et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy in acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients: an analysis of 69 patients. Int Surg.
1998;83:299302.
5. Sugiyama M, Tokuhara M, Atomi Y. Is percutaneous cholecystostomy the optimal treatment for acute cholecystitis in the very
elderly? World J Surg. 1998;22:45963.
6. Chopra S, Dodd GD 3rd, Mumbower AL, Chintapalli KN,
Schwesinger WH, Sirinek KR, et al. Treatment of acute cholecystitis in non-critically ill patients at high surgical risk: comparison of clinical outcomes after gallbladder aspiration and after
percutaneous cholecystostomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2001;176:102531.
7. Akhan O, Akinci D, Ozmen MN. Percutaneous cholecystostomy.
Eur J Radiol. 2002;43:22936.
8. Donald JJ, Cheslyn-Curtis S, Gillams AR, Russell RC, Lees WR.
Percutaneous cholecystolithotomy: is gall stone recurrence
inevitable? Gut. 1994;35:6925.
9. Hultman CS, Herbst CA, McCall JM, Mauro MA. The efficacy of
percutaneous cholecystostomy in critically ill patients. Am Surg.
1996;62:2639.
10. Melin MM, Sarr MG, Bender CE, van Heerden JA. Percutaneous
cholecystostomy: a valuable technique in high-risk patients with
presumed acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 1995;82:12747.
11. Davis CA, Landercasper J, Gundersen LH, Lambert PJ. Effective
use of percutaneous cholecystostomy in high-risk surgical
patients: techniques, tube management, and results. Arch Surg.
1999;134:72731.
12. Ito K, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Kimura K, Sugawara T,
et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy versus gallbladder aspiration
for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1936.
13. Babb RR. Acute acalculous cholecystitis. J Clin Gastroenterol.
1992;15:23841.
87
14. Lillemoe KD. Surgical treatment of biliary tract infections. Am
Surg. 2000;66:13844.
15. Tsutsui K, Uchida N, Hirabayashi S, Kamada H, Ono M, Ogawa
M, et al. Usefulness of single and repetitive percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration for the treatment of acute cholecystitis. J Gastroenterol. 2007;42:5838.
16. Itoi T, Coelho-Prabhu N, Baron TH. Endoscopic gallbladder
drainage for management of acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2010;71:103845.
17. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R,
Vist GE, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ.
2008;17(336):110610.
18. Winbladh A, Gullstrand P, Svanvik J, Sandstrom P. Systematic
review of cholecystostomy as a treatment option in acute cholecystitis. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11:18393.
19. Melloul E, Denys A, Demartines N, Calmes JM, Schafer M.
Percutaneous drainage versus emergency cholecystectomy for the
treatment of acute cholecystitis in critically ill patients: does it
matter? World J Surg. 2011;35:82633.
20. Rodriguez Sanjuan JC, Arruabarrena A, Sanchez Moreno L,
Gonzalez Sanchez F, Herrera LA, Gomez Fleitas M. Acute
cholecystitis in high surgical risk patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy or emergency cholecystectomy? Am J Surg.
2012;204(1):549.
21. Barak O, Elazary R, Appelbaum L, Rivkind A, Almogy G. Conservative treatment for acute cholecystitis: clinical and radiographic predictors of failure. Isr Med Assoc J. 2009;11:73943.
22. Baron TH, Schroeder PL, Schwartzberg MS, Carabasi MH.
Resolution of Mirizzis syndrome using endoscopic therapy.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:3435.
23. Feretis C, Apostolidis N, Mallas E, Manouras A, Papadimitriou J.
Endoscopic drainage of acute obstructive cholecystitis in patients
with increased operative risk. Endoscopy. 1993;25:3925.
24. Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Tsuchiya T, Kurihara T, Ishii K, et al.
Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage in patients with
acute cholecystitis in whom percutaneous transhepatic approach
is contraindicated or anatomically impossible (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:45560.
25. Kjaer DW, Kruse A, Funch-Jensen P. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage of patients with acute cholecystitis. Endoscopy. 2007;39:3048.
26. Nakatsu T, Okada H, Saito K, Uchida N, Minami A, Ezaki T,
et al. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD)
for the treatment of acute cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat
Surg. 1997;4:315.
27. Ogawa O, Yoshikumi H, Maruoka N, Hashimoto Y, Kishimoto
Y, Tsunamasa W, et al. Predicting the success of endoscopic
transpapillary gallbladder drainage for patients with acute cholecystitis during pretreatment evaluation. Can J Gastroenterol.
2008;22:6815.
28. Toyota N, Takada T, Amano H, Yoshida M, Miura F, Wada K.
Endoscopic naso-gallbladder drainage in the treatment of acute
cholecystitis: alleviates inflammation and fixes operators aim
during early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg. 2006;13:805.
29. Conway JD, Russo MW, Shrestha R. Endoscopic stent insertion
into the gallbladder for symptomatic gallbladder disease in
patients with end-stage liver disease. Gastrointest Endosc.
2005;61:326.
30. Gaglio PJ, Buniak B, Leevy CB. Primary endoscopic retrograde
cholecystoendoprosthesis: a nonsurgical modality for symptomatic cholelithiasis in cirrhotic patients. Gastrointest Endosc.
1996;44:33942.
31. Kalloo AN, Thuluvath PJ, Pasricha PJ. Treatment of high-risk
patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis by endoscopic gallbladder stenting. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:60810.
123
88
32. Pannala R, Petersen BT, Gostout CJ, Topazian MD, Levy MJ,
Baron TH. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage:
10-year single center experience. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol.
2008;54:10713.
33. Schlenker C, Trotter JF, Shah RJ, Everson G, Chen YK, Antillon
D, et al. Endoscopic gallbladder stent placement for treatment of
symptomatic cholelithiasis in patients with end-stage liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:27883.
34. Shrestha R, Bilir BM, Everson GT, Steinberg SE. Endoscopic
stenting of gallbladder for symptomatic cholelithiasis in patients
with end-stage liver disease awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91:5958.
35. Tamada K, Seki H, Sato K, Kano T, Sugiyama S, Ichiyama M,
et al. Efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholecystoendoprosthesis
(ERCCE) for cholecystitis. Endoscopy. 1991;23:23.
36. Johlin FC Jr, Neil GA. Drainage of the gallbladder in patients
with acute acalculous cholecystitis by transpapillary endoscopic
cholecystotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;39:64551.
37. Kwan V, Eisendrath P, Antaki F, Le Moine O, Deviere J. EUSguided cholecystoenterostomy: a new technique (with videos).
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:5826.
38. Lee SS, Park DH, Hwang CY, Ahn CS, Lee TY, Seo DW, et al.
EUS-guided transmural cholecystostomy as rescue management
for acute cholecystitis in elderly or high-risk patients: a prospective feasibility study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:
100812.
39. Baron TH, Topazian MD. Endoscopic transduodenal drainage of
the gallbladder: implications for endoluminal treatment of gallbladder disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:7357.
123
GUIDELINE
Abstract
Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now
accepted as a surgical procedure for acute cholecystitis
when it is performed by an expert surgeon. There are
several lines of strong evidence, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, supporting the
introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients
with acute cholecystitis. The updated Tokyo Guidelines
2013 (TG13) describe the surgical treatment for acute
cholecystitis according to the grade of severity, the timing,
and the procedure used for cholecystitis in a question-andanswer format using the evidence concerning surgical
management of acute cholecystitis.
Methods and materials Forty-eight publications were
selected for a careful examination of their full texts, and the
types of surgical management of acute cholecystitis were
investigated using this evidence. The items concerning the
surgical management of acute cholecystitis were the optimal surgical treatment for acute cholecystitis according to
Y. Yamashita (&)
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Fukuoka University
Hospital, Fukuoka University School of Medicine,
7-45-1 Nanakuma, Jonan-ku, Fukuoka 814-0180, Japan
e-mail: yuichiya@fukuoka-u.ac.jp
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Tochigi, Japan
T. Takada F. Miura
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine,
Tokyo, Japan
S. M. Strasberg
Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery,
Washington University in Saint Louis School of Medicine,
Saint Louis, MO, USA
H. A. Pitt
Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, IN, USA
D. J. Gouma
Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
O. J. Garden
Clinical Surgery, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
M. W. Buchler
Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg,
Heidelberg, Germany
C. Dervenis
First Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital,
Athens, Greece
J. A. Windsor
Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
S.-W. Kim
Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College
of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
E. de Santibanes
Department of Surgery, Hospital Italianio,
University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
R. Padbury
Division of Surgical and Specialty Services,
Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
X.-P. Chen
Department of Surgery, Hepatic Surgery Centre,
Tongji Hospital, Tongi Medical College, Huazhong Universty
of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
123
90
the grade of severity, optimal timing for the cholecystectomy, surgical procedure used for cholecystectomy, optimal timing of the conversion of cholecystectomy from
laparoscopic to open surgery, and the complications of
laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Results There were eight RCTs and four meta-analyses
concerning the optimal timing of the cholecystectomy.
Consequently, it was found that cholecystectomy is preferable early after admission. There were three RCTs and
two meta-analyses concerning the surgical procedure,
which concluded that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is
preferable to open procedures. Literature concerning the
surgical treatment according to the grade of severity could
not be quoted, because there have been no publications on
this topic. Therefore, the treatment was determined based
on the general opinions of professionals.
Conclusion Surgical management of acute cholecystitis
in the updated TG13 is fundamentally the same as in the
Tokyo Guidelines 2007 (TG07), and the concept of a critical
view of safety and the existence of extreme vasculobiliary
injury are added in the text to call the surgeons attention
to the need to reduce the incidence of bile duct injury.
Free full-text articles and a mobile application of TG13
are available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/tg13.
html.
Keywords Acute cholecystitis Laparoscopic
cholecystectomy Cholecystostomy Bile duct injury
Gallbladder drainage
Introduction
Cholecystectomy has been widely used as a surgical
procedure for acute cholecystitis. There have been several
A. C. W. Chan
Department of Surgery, Surgery Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium
and Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
S.-T. Fan
Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong,
Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
P. Jagannath
Department of Surgical Oncology, Lilavati Hospital and
Research Centre, Mumbai, India
T. Mayumi
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine,
Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
M. Yoshida
Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International
University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
123
T. Tsuyuguchi
Department of Medicine and Clinical Oncology, Graduate
School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
T. Itoi
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,
Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
A. N. Supe
Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Seth G S Medical
College and K E M Hospital, Mumbai, India
91
The optimal treatment for acute cholecystitis is essentially early cholecystectomy, and the use of an established
optimal surgical treatment for each grade of severity of
acute cholecystitis is necessary. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is indicated for patients with Grade I (Mild)
acute cholecystitis, because laparoscopic cholecystectomy
can be performed in most of these patients. Early laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy (within 72 h after the
onset of acute cholecystitis) is required in patients with
Grade II (Moderate) acute cholecystitis in experienced
centers, but for some patients with Grade II (Moderate)
acute cholecystitis, it is difficult to remove the gallbladder
surgically because of severe inflammation limited to the
gallbladder. This severe local inflammation of the gallbladder is defined by factors such as [72 h from the onset,
a white blood cell count [18,000, and a palpable tender
mass in the right upper abdominal quadrant. Continued
medical treatment or drainage of the contents of the
swollen gallbladder by percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage or surgical cholecystostomy is preferable,
and a delayed cholecystectomy after the improvement of
inflammation of the gallbladder is indicated. Among
patients with Grade II (Moderate), for those with serious
local complications including biliary peritonitis, pericholecystic abscess, liver abscess or for those with gallbladder
torsion, emphysematous cholecystitis, gangrenous cholecystitis, and purulent cholecystitis, emergency surgery is
conducted (open or laparoscopic depending on experience)
along with the general supportive care of the patient. The
urgent management of Grade III (Severe) acute cholecystitis is always necessary because the patients have organ
dysfunction, and the simultaneous drainage of the gallbladder contents is required to treat the severe
Gallstones are one of the major causes of acute cholecystitis, and cholecystectomy is now being carried out in
many of the patients with cholecystolithiasis. Until the first
half of the 1990s, there were opinions that laparoscopic
surgery was not indicated in patients with acute cholecystitis [3]. Open cholecystectomy was the standard technique.
However, more recently, laparoscopic surgery has also
been introduced for acute cholecystitis, and is now generally considered to be the first option for surgery, similar to
open cholecystectomy. Several reports, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic
cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy, have indicated that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with
a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay and a
lower incidence of complications [47]. A meta-analysis
has also shown that laparoscopic cholecystectomy not only
resulted in treatment effects similar to those produced by
open cholecystectomy, but that it is also a useful surgical
procedure in terms of its low mortality and morbidity[8, 9].
However, the above reports have failed to examine its use
for acute cholecystitis according to the grade of severity.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not recommended for all
cases of acute cholecystitis due to the possibility of patients
in whom cholecystectomy is difficult because of severe
inflammation [10].
On the other hand, there has been a change in the perioperative management of open cholecystectomy patients
in the last few years, and the current management aims to
reduce postoperative pain and encourage early ambulation
and early discharge. These changes show that, in terms of
the postoperative course, open cholecystectomy with miniincision is able to produce as good results as those obtained
by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, although the superiority
of laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a surgical technique for
acute cholecystolithiasis can be recognized [8, 9]. In fact, a
RCT was carried out to reappraise the use of laparoscopic
cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy by a subcostal
muscle transection incision [11]. This study indicated that
no significant differences were observed between the two
types of cholecystectomies with regard to the rate of
postoperative complications, the degree of pain at discharge, the duration of sick leave, and the direct medical
123
92
With regard to the timing of the surgery for acute cholecystitis, there are several reports of RCTs conducted in
the 1970s and 1980s that compared early surgery and
elective surgery (from the initial onset until 4 months later)
by open cholecystectomy. The trials failed to find a difference between the surgical procedures in terms of the
amount of bleeding, duration of surgery, and incidence of
complications; however, they were able to show that early
surgery is preferable because it reduces the hospital stay
and leads to an early cessation of pain in the patients [12
17]. In recent years, laparoscopic cholecystectomy has
been actively used for acute cholecystitis and the rate of its
use has been increasing every year since its introduction
[18]. The usefulness of early surgery (rather than delayed
surgery) has been indicated in RCTs [1921] and in metaanalyses in patients with acute cholecystitis [2225].
However, the definition of early surgery differed in each
report, because there were different starting times for the
operations, such as onset of symptoms, time of diagnosis,
and use of randomization. Early surgery was mainly conducted within 7296 h from onset of symptoms. On the
other hand, elective surgery was performed 6 weeks or
more after the onset. Thus, the results of several reports
indicated with a high level of evidence that laparoscopic
cholecystectomy performed during the first admission was
associated with a shorter hospital stay, quicker recovery,
and reduction in overall medical costs compared to open
cholecystectomy. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is
now accepted to be sufficiently safe for routine use.
123
After evaluating a patients overall condition and confirmation of the diagnosis by ultrasonography, computed
tomography (CT), and/or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, the timing of the surgical management of
acute cholecystitis patients should be decided by experienced surgeons. Unfortunately, early surgery is performed
less frequently than is recommended at present because of
the scarcity of surgeons [18, 26, 27]. However, the fact that
the above trials excluded patients with pan-peritonitis
caused by perforation of the gallbladder, patients with
common bile duct stones, and those with concomitant
severe cardiopulmonary disease should be kept in mind
when evaluating the results of these trials.
Additionally, each meta-analysis indicated that there
was no statistically significant difference in the incidence
of bile duct injury (BDI). However, these meta-analyses
did not include a large enough number of patients to detect
a difference, because the incidence of BDI in the laparoscopic era is generally less than 1.0 % [2830]. Therefore,
it is impossible to assert that there are no significant differences in the incidence of BDI on the basis of its frequency in these meta-analyses.
Q4. When is the optimal time for conversion from
laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy?
We recommend that surgeons should never hesitate to convert
to open surgery to prevent injuries when they experience
difficulties in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy
(recommendation 1, level C).
There is a relatively high rate of conversion from laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy for
acute cholecystitis because of technical difficulties, and
laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a high
complication rate [10, 31]. Although preoperative factors
such as male gender, previous abdominal surgery, the
presence or history of jaundice, advanced cholecystitis, and
infectious complications are associated with a need for
conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy,
they have limited predictive ability [3234]. Surgeons
assess patients using various factors when deciding whether or not conversion to open cholecystectomy, particularly during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, is necessary.
Therefore, experience not only of the individual surgeons,
but also of the institution where the laparoscopic cholecystectomy is conducted, is required to successfully perform cholecystectomy for all patients with acute
cholecystitis.
The critical view of safety described by Strasberg et al.
[1] in 1995 is of the utmost importance (Fig. 1). Above all,
this critical view is now the ultimate principle for
93
123
94
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
0.66
0.79
0.77
0.66
0.77
0.65
0.58
0.54
0.62
0.25
0.43
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.14
0.14
0.20
0.20
Bleeding (%)
0.65
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.69
0.56
0.58
0.52
0.55
No. of LCs
176,294
19,557
19,084
19,067
20,203
21,550
22,599
25,174
26,140
Japanese annual rates of bile duct injury, organ injury and bleeding to need laparotomy caused by laparoscopic cholecystectomy are shown
LC laparoscopic cholecystectomy
123
None.
References
1. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ. An analysis of the problem of
biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll
Surg. 1995;180:10125.
2. Tokyo guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and
cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:1121.
95
23. Shikata S, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Early versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Surg Today. 2005;35:55360.
24. Siddiqui T, MacDonald A, Chong PS, Jenkins T. Early versus
delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a
meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Am J Surg.
2008;195:407.
25. Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Glund C, Wilson E, Davidson R. Metaanalysis of randomized control trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for
acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 2010;97:14150.
26. Senapati PSP, Bhattarcharya D, Harinath G, Ammori BJ. A
survey of the timing and approach to the surgical management of
cholelithiasis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and acute
cholecystitis in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003;85:30612.
27. Cameron IC, Chadwick C, Phillips J, Johnson AG. Management
of acute cholecystitis in UK hospitals: time for a charge. Postgrad
Med J. 2004;80:2924.
28. Yamashita Y, Kimura T, Matsumoto S. A safe laparoscopic
cholecystectomy depends upon the establishment of a critical
view of safety. Surg Today. 2010;40:50713.
29. The Southern Surgeons Club. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:10738.
30. Richardson MC, Bell G, Fullarton GM. Incidence and nature of
bile duct injuries following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an
audit of 5913 cases. West of Scotland laparoscopic cholecystectomy audit group. Br J Surg. 1996;83:135660.
31. Hugh TB. New strategies to prevent laparoscopic bile duct injury :
surgeons can learn from pilots. Surgery. 2002;132:82635.
32. Eldar S, Sabo E, Nash E, Abrahamso J, Matter I. Laparoscopic
cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: prospective trial. World
J Surg. 1997;21:5405.
33. Brodsky A, Matter I, Sabo E, Cohen A, Abrahamson J, Eldar S.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: can the
need for conversion and the probability of complications be
predicted? Surg Endosc. 2000;14:75560.
34. Kama NA, Doganay M, Dolapci E, Reis E, Ati M, Kologlu M.
Risk factors resulting in conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open surgery. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:9658.
35. Kivinen H, Makela JT, Autio R, Tikkakoski T, Leinonen S, Siniluoto T, et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy in acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients: an analysis of 69 patients. Int Surg.
1998;83:299302.
36. Chikamori F, Kuniyosi N, Shibuya S, Takase Y. Early scheduled
laparoscopic cholecystectomy following percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for patients with acute cholecystitis.
Surg Endosc. 2002;16:17047.
37. Hyung OK, Byung HS, Chang HY, Jun HS. Impact of delayed
laparoscopic cholecystectomy after percutaneous transhepatic
gallbladder drainage for patients with complicated acute cholecystitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan. 2009;19:204.
38. Ito K, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Kimura K, Sugawara T,
et al. Percutaneous cholecystectomy versus gallbladder aspiration
for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
AJR. 2004;183:1936.
39. Strasberg SM, Gouma DJ. Extreme vasculobiliary injuries:
association with fundus-down cholecystectomy in severely
inflamed gallbladders. HPB. 2011;14:18.
40. Gurusamy K, Sahay SJ, Burroughs AK, Davidson BR. Systematic
review and meta-analysis of intraoperative versus preoperative
endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones. Br J Surg. 2011;98:90816.
41. Sarli L, Iusco DR, Roncoroni L. Preoperative endoscopic
sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: 10-year experience.
World J Surg. 2003;27:1806.
123
96
42. Basso N, Pizzuto G, Surgo D, Materia A, Silecchia G, Fantini A,
et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:5325.
43. Tokumura H, Umwzawa A, Hui Cao H, Sakamoto N, Imaoka Y.
Laparoscopic management of the common bile duct stone:
transcystic duct approach and cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg. 2002;9:20612.
44. Sarli L, Pietra N, Franze A, Colla G, Costi R, Gobbi S, et al.
Routine intravenous cholangiography, selective ERCP and
endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones before laparoscopic
cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:2008.
123
GUIDELINE
123
98
However, the usefulness of endoscopic naso-biliary drainage has increased along with the spread of endoscopic
biliary drainage procedures. (3) As for biliary tract infections in patients who underwent biliary tract surgery, the
incidence rate of cholangitis after reconstruction of the
biliary tract and liver transplantation is presented. (4) As
for primary sclerosing cholangitis, the frequency, age of
predilection and the rate of combination of inflammatory
enteropathy and biliary tract cancer are presented. (5) In
the case of acalculous cholecystitis, the frequency of
occurrence, causative factors and complications as well as
the frequency of gangrenous cholecystitis, gallbladder
perforation and diagnostic accuracy are included in the
updated Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13).
Free full-text articles and a mobile application of TG13 are
available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/tg13.html.
Keywords Oriental cholangitis Calculous cholecystitis
Primary sclerosing cholangitis Guidelines Biliary
infection
Characteristics
H. Gomi
Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University,
Tochigi, Japan
A. N. Supe
Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Seth G S Medical
College and K E M Hospital, Mumbai, India
P. Jagannath
Department of Surgical Oncology, Lilavati Hospital and
Research Centre, Mumbai, India
H. Singh
Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Hospital
Selayang, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia
M.-H. Kim
Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center,
University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea
S. C. Hilvano
Department of Surgery, College of Medicine-Philippine General
Hospital, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines
C.-G. Ker
Yuans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
S.-W. Kim
Department of Surgery, Seoul National University
College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
123
Diagnosis
Ultrasound/computed tomography (US/CT) enables
observation of bile duct dilatation and pneumobilia (Fig. 1,
Supplement Fig. 1), increased US echogenicity in the
portal vein segment of the liver, and atrophy of the liver
segment/decreased blood flow [46, 8]. However, US does
not necessarily depict intrahepatic stones accompanied by
acoustic shadow [8]. Calcium bilirubinate calculi are also
observed as a high-absorption region on CT; however, due
to the low absorption level of cholesterol stones, depiction
of cholesterol stones sometimes becomes difficult [8].
Magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP) is able to provide better
imaging without the risk of aggravated sepsis cholangitis
99
123
100
Treatment
The presence of preoperative cholangitis and cholecystitis
without control of pancreaticobiliary malignancies is an
independent risk factor for postoperative death during
hospital stay and the development of complications, so it is
considered that the control of those morbidities is important [2023]. In recent years, we have occasionally come
across opinions that recommend the use of endoscopic
naso-biliary drainage for hilar cholangiocarcinoma also, in
view of the occurrence of vascular injuries (8 %), peritoneal dissemination (4 %) and recurrence of fistula (5.2 %)
[24, 25]. However, there are so far no reports of randomized controlled trails comparing the modalities of preoperative biliary drainage. Therefore, it is thought that what
matters at this time will be whether or not there are physicians expert in endoscopic or percutaneous drainage at
the facility involved, and the selection of a method
123
Characteristics
After ERCP and biliary tract surgery, there can be latent
cholangitis and cholecystitis. According to reports that
have examined patients undergoing biliary tract reconstruction, cholangitis occurred during 29129 months
follow-up in 11.3 % of the patients after papilloplasty,
10.310.9 % after choledochoduodenostomy, and 6.411.3 %
after choledochojejunostomy (Supplement Fig. 3), and in
about 4 % of patients in whom cholangitis was recurrent
and severe [27, 28]. Although there are no differences
between perioperative mortality rate and the incidence rate
of complications [28], bile duct carcinomas occurred after
biliary tract reconstruction in 1.97.6 % of the patients,
suggesting the presence of a relationship between inflammatory changes in the bile duct following biliary tract
reconstruction and biliary tract cancer that occurs in the
late stage [27]. According to a report on patients who were
followed up for more than 10 years after surgery for congenital biliary tract dilatation conducted in childhood
(mean age 4.2 years), impairment of the liver occurred in
10.7 % of the patients, bile duct dilatation in 10.7 %, and
repeated cholangitis in 1.8 % [29].
A systematic review of liver transplantation in adult
patients shows that bile duct stricture occurred in 12 % of
patients undergoing brain-dead donor liver transplantation
and in 19 % of patients undergoing live-donor liver
transplantation [30]. According to a discussion of the result
according to the surgical techniques of biliary tract
reconstruction in 51 patients who had undergone liver
transplantation due to primary sclerosing cholangitis
(PSC), there were no differences in the survival rate in
101
123
102
mediators such as eicosanoids are involved in the mechanisms for developing such conditions [69, 73].
Acalculous cholecystitis
Characteristics
Diagnosis
Patients with acute acalculous cholecystitis (Fig. 3) account
for 3.714 % of the patients with acute cholecystitis,
1249 % of which occurs after trauma and major surgery
[65, 66]. Acute acalculous cholecystitis occurs in about 1 %
of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) [67],
about 1.2 % of patients with severe burns [68], 5963 % of
patients with gangrenous cholecystitis, and 1520 % of
patients with gallbladder perforation [65, 6971] together
with frequent multiple organ dysfunction. The mortality
rate is 0 % when the patients general status is maintained
[65, 72]; however, it is high (3053 %) in critically ill
patients [6769]. Early and appropriate diagnosis and
treatment are necessary to reduce the mortality rate [69, 71].
Risk factors for the development of acalculous cholecystitis
include surgery, trauma, long-term ICU stays, infections,
burns and parenteral nutrition [67, 68]. It is reported
that ischemia, reperfusion injury and proinflammatory
123
(d) shows gallbladder distension. Gallbladder shows marked hyperintensity (asterisk) on fat-suppressed T1-weighted MR image (e) and
T2-weighted image (f) indicating inspissated bile juice
Treatment
Cholecystectomy and/or cholecystostomy (drainage of the
gallbladder) are carried out. However, appropriate timing
and necessity of cholecystectomy and cholecystostomy are
controversial [71]. There are many opinions that cholecystostomy should be conducted in patients with poor
general status and that cholecystectomy should be carried
out after recovery has been achieved [69, 71, 77, 78].
However, there is a group arguing that cholecystectomy
only should be performed [79] and a group asserting that
cholecystostomy is the definitive treatment in patients with
extremely high risk [80].
Conflict of interest
None.
References
1. Yasuda H, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Hirata K, Kimura Y,
et al. Unusual cases of acute cholecystitis and cholangitis:
Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:98113
(clinical practice guidelines CPGs).
2. Mage S, Morel AS. Surgical experience with cholangiohepatitis
(Hong Kong disease) in Canton Chinese. Ann Surg. 1965;162:
18790.
3. Carmona RH, Crass RA, Lim RC, Trunkey DD. Oriental cholangitis. Am J Surg. 1984;148:11724.
4. van Sonnenberg E, Casola G, Cubberley DA, Halasz NA, Cabrera
OA, Wittich GR, et al. Oriental cholangiohepatitis: diagnostic
imaging and interventional management. Am J Roentgenol.
1986;146:32731.
5. Lim JH. Oriental cholangiohepatitis: pathologic, clinical, and
radiologic features. Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:18.
6. Heffernan EJ, Geoghegan T, Munk PL, Ho SG, Harris AC.
Recurrent pyogenic cholangitis: from imaging to intervention.
Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:W2835.
7. Wani NA, Robbani I, Kosar T. MRI of oriental cholangiohepatitis. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:15863.
8. Mori T, Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. Gallstone disease: management
of intrahepatic stones. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;20:
111737.
9. Tsui WM, Lam PW, Lee WK, Chan YK. Primary hepatolithiasis,
recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, and oriental cholangiohepatitis: a
tale of 3 countries. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011;18:31828.
103
10. Rana SS, Bhasin DK, Nanda M, Singh K. Parasitic infestations of
the biliary tract. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2007;9:15664.
11. Lim JH. Liver flukes: the malady neglected. Korean J Radiol.
2011;12:26979.
12. Okamoto T, Fujioka S, Yanagisawa S, Yanaga K, Kakutani H,
Tajiri H, et al. Placement of a metallic stent across the main
duodenal papilla may predispose to cholangitis. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2006;63:7926.
13. Misra SP, Dwivedi M. Reflux of duodenal contents and cholangitis in patients undergoing self-expanding metal stent placement.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:31721.
14. Isayama H, Kawabe T, Nakai Y, Tsujino T, Sasahira N,
Yamamoto N, et al. Cholecystitis after metallic stent placement in
patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:114853.
15. Suk KT, Kim HS, Kim JW, Baik SK, Kwon SO, Kim HG, et al.
Risk factors for cholecystitis after metal stent placement in
malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:
5229.
16. Albu S, Tantau M, Sparchez Z, Branda H, Suteu T, Badea R,
et al. Diagnosis and treatment of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: results in a series of 124 patients. Rom J Gastroenterol.
2005;14:336.
17. Choi JY, Kim MJ, Lee JM, Kim KW, Lee JY, Han JK, et al. Hilar
cholangiocarcinoma: role of preoperative imaging with sonography, MDCT, MRI, and direct cholangiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:144857.
18. Unno M, Okumoto T, Katayose Y, Rikiyama T, Sato A, Motoi F,
et al. Preoperative assessment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma by
multidetector row computed tomography. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:43440.
19. Romagnuolo J, Bardou M, Rahme E, Joseph L, Reinhold C,
Barkun AN. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a
meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary disease.
Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:54757.
20. Pitt HA, Postier RG, Cameron JL. Biliary bacteria: significance
and alterations after antibiotic therapy. Arch Surg. 1982;117:
4459.
21. Wells GR, Taylor EW, Lindsay G, Morton L. Relationship
between bile colonization, high-risk factors and postoperative
sepsis in patients undergoing biliary tract operations while
receiving a prophylactic antibiotic. West of Scotland Surgical
Infection Study Group. Br J Surg. 1989;76:3747.
22. Kanai M, Nimura Y, Kamiya J, Kondo S, Nagino M, Miyachi M,
et al. Preoperative intrahepatic segmental cholangitis in patients
with advanced carcinoma involving the hepatic hilus. Surgery.
1996;119:498504.
23. Sano T, Shimada K, Sakamoto Y, Yamamoto J, Yamasaki S,
Kosuge T. One hundred two consecutive hepatobiliary resections
for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma with zero mortality. Ann Surg.
2006;244:2407.
24. Kawakami H, Kuwatani M, Onodera M, Haba S, Eto K, Ehira N,
et al. Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is the most suitable preoperative biliary drainage method in the management of patients
with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:2428.
25. Takahashi Y, Nagino M, Nishio H, Ebata T, Igami T, Nimura Y.
Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage catheter tract recurrence in cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2010;97:18606.
26. Nagino M, Takada T, Miyazaki M, Miyakawa S, Tsukada K,
Kondo S, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage for biliary tract and
ampullary carcinomas. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2008;15:
2530 (CPGs).
27. Tocchi A, Mazzoni G, Liotta G, Lepre L, Cassini D, Miccini M.
Late development of bile duct cancer in patients who had biliaryenteric drainage for benign disease: a follow-up study of more
than 1,000 patients. Ann Surg. 2001;234:2104.
123
104
28. Panis Y, Fagniez PL, Brisset D, Lacaine F, Levard H, Hay JM.
Long term results of choledochoduodenostomy versus choledochojejunostomy for choledocholithiasis. The French Association
for Surgical Research. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;177:337.
29. Ono S, Fumino S, Shimadera S, Iwai N. Long-term outcomes
after hepaticojejunostomy for choledochal cyst: a 10- to 27-year
follow-up. J Pediatr Surg. 2010;45:3768.
30. Akamatsu N, Sugawara Y, Hashimoto D. Biliary reconstruction,
its complications and management of biliary complications after
adult liver transplantation: a systematic review of the incidence,
risk factors and outcome. Transpl Int. 2011;24:37992.
31. Schmitz V, Neumann UP, Puhl G, Tran ZV, Neuhaus P, Langrehr
JM. Surgical complications and long-term outcome of different
biliary reconstructions in liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis-choledochoduodenostomy versus choledochojejunostomy. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:37985.
32. Oh SJ, Choi WB, Song J, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH. Complications requiring reoperation after gastrectomy for gastric
cancer: 17 years experience in a single institute. J Gastrointest
Surg. 2009;13:23945.
33. Ito T. Acute noncalculous cholecystitis following gastrectomy for
gastric cancerstudy by ultrasonic examination. Nihon Geka
Gakkai Zasshi. 1985;86:143443.
34. Wagnetz U, Jaskolka J, Yang P, Jhaveri KS. Acute ischemic
cholecystitis after transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: incidence and clinical outcome. J Comput Assist
Tomogr. 2010;34:34853.
35. Chen TM, Huang PT, Lin LF, Tung JN. Major complications of
ultrasound-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablations for
liver malignancies: single center experience. J Gastroenterol
Hepatol. 2008;23:e44550.
36. Tachibana M, Kinugasa S, Yoshimura H, Dhar DK, Ueda S, Fujii
T, et al. Acute cholecystitis and cholelithiasis developed after
esophagectomy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:1758.
37. Vassiliou I, Papadakis E, Arkadopoulos N, Theodoraki K,
Marinis A, Theodosopoulos T, et al. Gastrointestinal emergencies
in cardiac surgery. A retrospective analysis of 3,724 consecutive
patients from a single center. Cardiology. 2008;111:94101.
38. LaRusso NF, Shneider BL, Black D, Gores GJ, James SP, Doo E,
et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis: summary of a workshop.
Hepatology. 2006;44:74664.
39. Lee YM, Kaplan MM. Primary sclerosing cholangitis. N Engl J
Med. 1995;332:92433.
40. Linder KD, LaRusso NF. Primary sclerosing cholangitis Schiffs
diseases of the liver. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilikins; 2003. p. 67384.
41. Bambha K, Kim WR, Talwalkar J, Torgerson H, Benson JT,
Therneau TM, et al. Incidence, clinical spectrum, and outcomes
of primary sclerosing cholangitis in a United State community.
Gastroenterology. 2003;125:13649.
42. Card TR, Solaymani-Dodaran M, West J. Incidence and mortality
of primary sclerosing cholangitis in the UK: a population-based
cohort study. J Hepatol. 2008;48:93944.
43. Hirano K, Tada M, Isayama H, Yashima Y, Yagioka H, Sasaki T,
et al. Clinical features of primary sclerosing cholangitis with
onset age above 50 years. J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:72933.
44. Takikawa H, Takamori Y, Tanaka A, Kurihara H, Nakanuma Y.
Analysis of 388 cases of primary sclerosing cholangitis in Japan;
presence of a subgroup without pancreatic involvement in older
patients. Hepatol Res. 2004;29:1539.
45. Bjornsson E, Olsson R, Bergquist A, Lindgren S, Braden B,
Chapman RW, et al. The natural history of small-duct primary
sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:97580.
46. Burak K, Angulo P, Pasha TM, Egan K, Petz J, Lindor KD.
Incidence and risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma in primary
sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:5236.
123
105
74. Ahvenjarvi L, Koivukangas V, Jartti A, Ohtonen P, Saarnio J,
Syrjala H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography
imaging of surgically treated acute acalculous cholecystitis in
critically ill patients. J Trauma. 2011;70:1838.
75. Mirvis SE, Vainright JR, Nelson AW, Johnston GS, Shorr R,
Rodriguez A, et al. The diagnosis of acute acalculous cholecystitis: a comparison of sonography, scintigraphy, and CT. Am J
Roentgenol. 1986;147:11715.
76. Diagnostic Laparoscopy Guidelines; Practice/Clinical Guidelines
published on 11/2007 by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES, CPG).
77. Sosna J, Copel L, Kane RA, Kruskal JB. Ultrasound-guided
percutaneous cholecystostomy: update on technique and clinical
applications. Surg Technol Int. 2003;11:1359.
78. Owen CC, Bilhartz LE. Gallbladder polyps, cholesterolosis,
adenomyomatosis, and acute acalculous cholecystitis. Semin
Gastrointest Dis. 2003;14:17888.
79. Laurila J, Laurila PA, Saarnio J, Koivukangas V, Syrjala H,
Ala-Kokko TI. Organ system dysfunction following open cholecystectomy for acute acalculous cholecystitis in critically ill
patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:1739.
80. Griniatsos J, Petrou A, Pappas P, Revenas K, Karavokyros I,
Michail OP, et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy without interval
cholecystectomy as definitive treatment of acute cholecystitis in
elderly and critically ill patients. South Med J. 2008;101:58690.
123
ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Colleagues,
As the founding president of the Asian-Pacific HPBA, I
would like to underline once again that this journal is the
official journal of the following three societies:
The Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association
(A-P HPBA)
The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery
(JSHBPS)
The Japan Biliary Association (JBA)
It is my pleasure to inform you of the current activities
of the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association
(A-P HPBA).
123
107
Xiao-Ping Chen,
President-Elect
Tongji Hospital
Tongji Medical College
Department of General
Surgery
Huazhong University of
Science and Technology
Wuhan
China
Sung-Gyu Lee
Secretary
Korea
Sheung-Tat Fan
Treasurer
Hong Kong
123
108
Masao Tanaka
Chairman of Scientific
Committee
Japan
Feng Shen
Member-at-Large
China
Norihiro Kokudo
Secretary-Elect
Japan
Avinash Supe
Member-at-Large
India
Meng-Chao Wu
Congress Chairman, Fourth
Congress
Shanghai Eastern
Hepatobiliary Surgery
Hospital
Shanghai
China
Christopher Christophi
Member-at-Large
Australia
123
Masakazu Yamamoto
Member-at-Large
Japan
Sung-Whe Kim
Member-at-Large
Korea
Harjit Singh
Member-at-Large
Malaysia
109
Winston WL Woon
Member-at-Large
Singapore
Chao-Long Chen
Member-at-Large
Taiwan
A-PHPBA Committees
Executive Committee (20112013)
Chairman: Palepu Jagannath (India), President
Members: Xiao-Ping Chen (China), President-Elect
Joseph WY Lau (Hong Kong), Immediate Past-President
Sung-Gyu Lee (Korea), Secretary
Sheung-Tat Fan (Hong Kong), Treasurer
Masao Tanaka (Japan), Chairman of Scientific Committee
Education and Training Committee (20112013)
Chairman: Palepu Jagannath (President)
Members: Xiao-Ping Chen (President-Elect)
Christopher Christophi (Member-at-Large, Australia/New
Zealand)
Feng Shen (Member-at-Large, China)
123