International Normalized Ratio Does Not Predict Gastrointestinal Bleeding After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients With Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cirrhosis is often accompanied by an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) due to a decrease in pro-coagulant factors. An elevated INR in cirrhosis is often interpreted as an increased risk of bleeding. There are a paucity of data in the literature on the use of INR to predict risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with cirrhosis. The aims of the study were to determine if there is a correlation between INR and GIB following ERCP in patients with cirrhosis, and to determine if there is a difference in frequency of post-ERCP complications in patients with and without cirrhosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of all ERCP procedures was performed at a tertiary care institution between 2012 and 2015. We identified ERCPs performed in patients with cirrhosis and compared them to a randomly selected group without liver cirrhosis. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-square and ANOVA tests. A multivariable logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations was used to examine the association between INR and GIB. RESULTS: There were a total of 1,610 ERCPs performed from 2012 to 2015 with 129 performed in 56 patients with cirrhosis compared with 392 ERCPs performed in 310 patients without cirrhosis. There was no difference in the frequency of GIB following ERCP in both groups (P = 0.117). However, there was a difference in overall complications between both groups (P = 0.007), but no difference observed amongst Child-Turcotte-Pugh classes (P = NS). In a multivariable analysis, sphincterotomy during ERCP (odds ratio (OR) = 3.22; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05 - 9.94; P = 0.042) and cirrhosis (OR = 3.58; 95% CI: 1.22 - 10.47; P = 0.02) were significant for predicting GIB. Anti-coagulation (OR = 2.90; 95% CI: 0.82 - 10.23; P = 0.097) and INR were not significant in the multivariable model (OR = 2.09; 95% CI: 0.85 - 5.12; P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: There was a statistical difference in overall complications between patients with and without cirrhosis but no difference was observed amongst Child-Turcotte-Pugh classes. Overall, INR was not a significant factor in predicting risk of bleeding in patients after ERCP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".