A126 IMPACT OF TIME OF DAY ON PROCEDURAL OUTCOMES IN ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY (ERCP): ANALYSIS FROM A TERTIARY REFERRAL CENTER
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an established diagnostic and therapeutic tool for hepatobiliary disease. Given its technical demands, it remains one of the highest-risk endoscopic procedures. Addressing modifiable factors, such as operator fatigue, may mitigate procedural risk. In colonoscopy, there is conflicting data on whether procedure time of day, as a surrogate of operator fatigue, affects outcomes, with some literature demonstrating decreased procedure completion and polyp detection rates in the afternoon. There is a paucity of data evaluating this potential relationship in ERCP. Aims To evaluate the impact of procedure time of day on procedural success and short-term adverse outcomes in patients undergoing ERCP. Methods A retrospective review of ERCP's performed on adult patients at our tertiary referral center from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the procedural success rate, defined as successful navigation to the papilla, selective duct cannulation and cholangiography, and realization of the intended therapeutic goals. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, rate of deep ductal cannulation, rate of sphincterotomy, and short-term (30-day) adverse events (immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, pancreatitis, perforation). Statistical analysis was conducted using R. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test of independence or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were compared using T-tests or the Mann-Whitney-U test. Results A total of 5755 ERCP’s were performed between 8 AM – 6 PM; 2863 were performed before 12PM (AM group) and 2892 after 12PM (PM group). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts, with the exception of hypertension (33.7% AM vs 30.1% PM; p=0.003), and anticoagulation (20.3% AM vs 18.3% PM; p=0.05). In both groups, the most common ERCP indication was choledocholithiasis. The primary operators in both cohorts were clinical fellows. There was no difference in procedural success rate (87.0 % AM vs 86.7% PM; p = 0.72), procedure duration (33.6 minutes AM vs 32.9 minutes PM; p = 0.29), rates of deep cannulation (82.6% AM vs 83.0% PM; p = 0.81) and sphincterotomies (63.2% vs 62.7%; p = 0.68). Rate of adverse events were similar, with slightly higher rates of immediate bleeding in the AM group (5.0% AM vs 3.8% PM; p = 0.03). Results were similar in a subgroup analysis of patients with altered anatomy. Conclusions In this large retrospective review of ERCPs performed at a tertiary referral center, the procedure time of day did not impact procedural success rate. There were slightly higher rates of immediate bleeding in the AM group, though this may be explained by higher rates of anticoagulation in that group. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».