Should Proton Pump Inhibitors be Systematically Prescribed in Patients With Esophageal Atresia After Surgical Repair?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of patients with esophageal atresia (EA) on systematic treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) since the neonatal period and to determine factors associated with successful discontinuation of PPI. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study with prospective data collection of 73 EA patients, over 11 years systematically treated with PPI. Outcome and predictive factors for discontinuation of PPI treatment were evaluated at study end in February 2017. The incidence of anastomotic strictures was compared with a historical cohort of 134 EA patients followed in the same institution between 1990 and 2005 before the era of systematic PPI treatment. RESULTS: PPI treatment was discontinued definitively in 48% of patients during follow-up. Prematurity, longer initial hospitalization, moderate-to-severe tracheomalacia, anastomotic leak and anastomotic stricture had a significant negative association with PPI discontinuation on univariate analysis (P < 0.05). On adjusted multivariable Cox regression analysis, moderate-to-severe tracheomalacia and anastomotic leak were negatively associated with discontinuation of PPI treatment (hazard ratio 0.26 [95% CI 0.12-0.59]; P = 0.001 and hazard ratio 0.38 [95% CI 0.16-0.93]; P = 0.03, respectively). There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic strictures in the present cohort compared with the historical cohort (44% vs 39%); (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PPI treatment does not prevent the formation of anastomotic strictures and appears to be over-prescribed in children with airway symptoms because of tracheomalacia. This suggests that PPI treatment could be prescribed more selectively. Close monitoring and long-term follow-up, however, of these vulnerable patients in specialized multidisciplinary clinics is imperative.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".