Cisapride Use in Pediatric Patients With Intestinal Failure and Its Impact on Progression of Enteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal dysmotility is common in patients with pediatric intestinal failure (PIF), leading to delays in advancement of enteral nutrition (EN). Few studies have been published regarding the safety and efficacy of cisapride for improvement of enteral tolerance and ability to wean parenteral nutrition. Our objective was to describe a single center experience on the use of cisapride in patients with PIF. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients was performed. Demographic, intestinal anatomy, and outcome data were collected. Percentage of EN before initiation of cisapride, progression of EN at 3 and 6 months, and ability to wean parenteral nutrition after initiation of cisapride were calculated. RESULTS: Prokinetics were used in 61 of 106 patients (56.6%); 29 of 60 patients (48.3%) failed to progress EN on other prokinetics and started on cisapride. Before cisapride the progress of EN plateaued for a mean of 42.3 (standard deviation [SD] 60.2) days. The rate of feed progression was 0.14% (SD 0.19)/day pre-cisapride and 0.69%/day (SD 0.31) after cisapride initiation (P < 0.001). Percentage of EN improved significantly from baseline to 3 months postinitiation (23.9% vs 79.4%, respectively; P < 0.001). Electrocardiogram was performed on initiation of cisapride and after every dose change. Medication was discontinued in 2 of 29 (6.8%). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study suggests that cisapride may be beneficial in PIF patients who fail to progress EN on first line prokinetics. The most significant period of improvement occurs within 3 months of cisapride initiation. Cardiac side effects in our cohort were lower than previously reported; however, cardiac monitoring is still recommended.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".