Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors before Endoscopy in Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with High-Risk Stigmata: A Multicentre Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not clear if starting intravenous proton pump inhibitors (IV PPI) before endoscopic therapy provides additional benefit over starting it afterward in patients with high-risk ulcer stigmata of peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: All patients who received IV pantoprazole bolus and infusion and underwent endoscopy in six Canadian hospitals over 20 months were reviewed. Only patients with high-risk ulcer stigmata (arterial bleeding, oozing, nonbleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) were included. Patients receiving IV PPI before endoscopy (before group) were compared with those who received it after endoscopy (after group) with respect to endoscopic findings and, secondarily, to patient demographics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The demographics and baseline characteristics of the before group (n=57) and the after group (n=109) were similar. The before group was more likely to have had IV PPI started outside of daytime hours, and median time to endoscopy in patients admitted with upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 24 h (interquartile range 9.5 to 35) in the before group and 11.3 h (interquartile range 3.7 to 17.2) in the after group (P<0.0001). At the time of endoscopy, 33% of patients in the before group had actively bleeding lesions (Forrest 1a or 1b) compared with 54% in the after group (P=0.01), but there were no significant differences in rebleeding, surgical rates, intensive care unit admission or death between the groups. CONCLUSION: IV PPI infusions before endoscopy may lower the proportion of actively bleeding peptic ulcer lesions at endoscopy, but this finding does not appear to affect rates of rebleeding, surgery or death.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".