Clinical Challenges in Acute Cholecystitis: Endoscopic Drainage Strategies (EUS-GBD vs. ET-GBD) in Patients with Surgical Contraindications

Acute cholecystitis (AC) is one of the most prevalent gastrointestinal emergencies, with laparoscopic cholecystectomy representing the definitive treatment per current guidelines. However, a substantial proportion of patients—particularly elderly individuals with major comorbidities, multiorgan dysfunction, or advanced malignancy—are considered poor surgical candidates in whom operative intervention carries prohibitive risk. Although percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has traditionally served as the first-line non-surgical alternative, its significant morbidity and technical limitations in patients with coagulopathy, massive ascites, or an unsafe percutaneous window have driven the development of endoscopic drainage modalities. This review critically appraises the comparative evidence for two endoscopic gallbladder drainage strategies: endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD), performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), most commonly using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). In appropriately selected high-risk surgical candidates, EUS-GBD with LAMS has emerged as a preferred endoscopic option, supported by high technical success rates, low recurrent AC rates, AGA expert guidance, and FDA regulatory reclassification of the AXIOS stent for gallbladder drainage. Nevertheless, ET-GBD retains distinct clinical indications, including concurrent biliary intervention, large-volume ascites, high bleeding risk, anticipated surgical candidacy, and resource-limited settings. Optimal management requires a systematic, algorithm-driven multidisciplinary approach integrating comorbidity profile, biliary anatomy, cystic duct patency, and institutional expertise.