Background and Aims: Endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis has expanded in patients who are considered nonoperative candidates. Traditionally managed with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), improvement in techniques and devices has led to increased use of endoscopic methods for gallbladder drainage. This document reviews technical aspects of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD) as well as their respective technical/clinical success and adverse event rates. Available comparative data are also reviewed among nonsurgical gallbladder drainage techniques (PC, ET-GBD, and EUS-GBD). Methods: The MEDLINE database was searched through March 2021 for relevant articles by using keywords including “acute cholecystitis,” “interventional EUS,” “percutaneous cholecystostomy,” “transpapillary gallbladder drainage,” “EUS-guided gallbladder drainage,” “lumen-apposing metal stent,” “gallbladder stenting,” and “endoscopic gallbladder drainage.” The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board. Results: Multiple studies have demonstrated acceptable outcomes comparing PC and both endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques, ET-GBD and EUS-GBD. Published data suggest that endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques may be associated with lower rates of adverse events and improved quality of life. However, there are important clinical considerations for choosing among these treatment options, requiring a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to therapeutic decision-making in these patients. Conclusions: The implementation of EUS-GBD and ET-GBD in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis may result in favorable outcomes when compared with PC. Further improvements in techniques and training should lead to more widespread acceptance and dissemination of these treatment options.