MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133844577 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.130

A132 ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED GASTROENTEROSTOMY USING A NOVEL DOUBLE BALLOON DEVICE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF MALIGNANT GASTRIC OUTLET OBSTRUCTION

2021· article· en· W3133844577 on OpenAlexaff
A. Marino, Ali Bessissow, David Valenti, Louis-Martin Boucher, Corey Miller, Nauzer Forbes, Prosanto Chaudhury, Myriam Martel, Y Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastroenterostomyBalloonSurgeryRadiologyStentClinical endpointLumen (anatomy)CatheterRandomized controlled trialCancerInternal medicineGastrectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background EUS-gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel modality in the management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO). It is, however, technically challenging limiting its widespread application. To facilitate EUS-GE, a double balloon catheter has been developed in Japan. While this tool is not available outside of Asia, we have conceived a similar device using a widely available vascular balloon catheter. We aim to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of EUS-GE using this double balloon device (DBD). Aims We aim to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of EUS-GE using this double balloon device (DBD). Methods This is a single-centre, retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent DBD assisted EUS-GE for MGOO from January 2019-June 2020 (IRB approved). The DBD consists of two 60 mm vascular balloons (Coda, Cook Medical, USA) fashioned together with the balloons 10 cm apart (Figure 1). It is inserted across the obstruction over a wire to the ligaments of Treitz. Both balloons are then inflated followed by saline and contrast infusion into the occluded small bowel segment to facilitate EUS-guided insertion of a 15 mm cautery assisted lumen apposing metal stent (AxiosTM, Boston Scientific Inc, USA). The primary endpoint is the rate of technical success defined as adequate deployment of the stent. Secondary endpoints include rate of clinical success and adverse events. Results A total of 11 patients were included in this study. 45% were female with a mean age of 64.9 ± 8.6 years old. The etiology of MGOO was 73% pancreatic cancer, 9% gastric cancer, 9% duodenal cancer, and 9% metastatic cervical cancer. Procedures were performed under general anesthesia and conscious sedation in 82% and 18%, of patients respectively. The mean procedure time was 64.8 ± 25.8 minutes. Technical and clinical success (intention to treat) was 91%. The only technical failure was due to poor patient tolerance of the procedure under conscious sedation. There was one adverse event (9%) due to stent migration rated as severe. Two patients (18%) required re-intervention for stent obstruction secondary to food impaction associated with non-compliance to a low-residue diet. Following re-enforced instructions, no further obstruction occurred. All patients started a clear liquid diet within 1 day of the procedure with a mean time to a low residue diet of 3.25 days ± 2.5. The median length of hospital stay following the procedure was 5 days ± 13. The median follow-up time was 84 days (IQR 152). Conclusions DBD assisted EUS-GE is clinically effective and safe. This balloon device may greatly facilitate the technical aspect of EUS-GE while potential enhancing its safety and clinical use. Larger studies are needed to validate this approach to EUS-GE. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207