Low endoscopy bleeding risk in patients with congenital bleeding disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia A and haemophilia B, von Willebrand disease (VWD), factor VII deficiency and factor XI deficiency are congenital bleeding disorders predisposing to bleeding during invasive procedures. The ageing population of people with congenital bleeding disorders will likely increasingly require gastrointestinal endoscopy. The bleeding risk postgastrointestinal endoscopy and optimal prophylactic treatment regimens are not well described. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review at the McGill University Health Centre. Adult patients with haemophilia A or B, VWD, FVII deficiency and FXI deficiency who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were included. Bleeding prophylaxis included combinations of plasma-derived factor (VWD) or recombinant factor (haemophilia A and haemophilia B), desmopressin and/or tranexamic acid. Our primary outcome was the 72-hour postendoscopy bleeding rate. RESULTS: One hundred and four endoscopies were performed in 48 patients. Haemophilia A (45.3% of endoscopies) was the most common bleeding disorder, followed by VWD (38.5%), FXI deficiency (8.7%), haemophilia B (4.8%) and FVII deficiency (2.9%). All patients were reviewed by the Haemophilia Treatment Center with peri-procedure treatment protocols put in place as required. The overall 72-hour bleeding rate was 0.96%, confidence interval (CI) 95% (0.17%-5.25%). The colonoscopic postpolypectomy bleeding rate was 1/21 (4.8%, CI 95% (0.9%-22.7%)) in comparison with the general population rate of 0.3%-10% for high-risk endoscopy (including colonoscopic polypectomy). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study describing patients with inherited bleeding disorders undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The bleeding risk is not significantly higher to the general population when haemostatically managed by a team experienced in bleeding disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".