A183 UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL CAUSTIC INJURIES: A SINGLE CENTRE CASE SERIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Caustic esophageal and gastric injury is a rare, but potentially lethal event. The 2017 American Association of Poison Control reported only 193,000 cases of caustic ingestion (1). Caustic agents are acidic or alkaline. The pH of the ingested substance dictates the type of injury and the area of the gastrointestinal track most at risk. The most common culprit agents are alkaline including, for example, bleaches, drain openers and dishwashing detergents. Due to the rarity and natural history of this disease there are very few high-quality studies for clinicians to refer to when managing these patients. Aims We present three cases of caustic ingestion and provide a review of current best practice standards. Methods Between August and September 2019, three patients were admitted to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre at the University of Toronto for caustic injury. All three patients were referred to the gastroenterology service and underwent an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to assess the degree of esophageal and gastric injury. Patients were followed both in hospital and in the outpatient setting for ongoing surveillance and repeated endoscopic evaluation. Patient demographics, treatment, endoscopic findings and outcomes were collected. Results Three patients intentionally ingested caustic agents, were admitted to hospital and managed by the gastroenterology service. Patients were a mix of ages, genders and ethnicities. All ingestions were strong alkali agents including sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite. All patients underwent an EGD within 24 hours of presentation and caustic injury was graded using the Zargar classification (2). All patients were started on intravenous proton pump inhibitor therapy. All patients were initially made nothing per mouth and ability to resume feeds was assessed based on symptoms. Patient 1, Zargar grade 1, was able to resume oral intake within 48 hours and progressed to a regular diet without complications. Patient 2, Zargar grade 2a, required 5 days of TPN and bowel rest after which a liquid diet was initiated and advanced without complications. The third patient, had a severe injury (Zargar grade 3b), requiring a prolonged hospital stay. He was on TPN for three weeks before transitioned to tube feeds. Conclusions Caustic mucosal injuries are an infrequent, but potentially lethal event requiring urgent assessment and management by a team including gastroenterologists, thoracic and abdominal surgeons, dieticians and intensivists. High-quality evidence to guide management of caustic injuries remains limited. In our case series, there was a wide spectrum of degree of mucosal injury. All 3 patients were managed in a consistent fashion based on current recommendations. Two of three cases had a rapid recovery with the ability to resume oral intake and return home. The third patient remains in hospital, requiring a high level of supportive care. Funding Agencies None
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".