P354 Early treatment versus active surveillance after ileocolic resection in Crohn’s disease: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) often require ileocolic resection (ICR) due to refractory disease or disease-related complications, such as intestinal strictures, enteric fistulae or intra-abdominal abscesses. Up to 70% of patients will develop new endoscopic lesions in the neoterminal ileum within the first year after surgery. We assessed if the timing of postoperative treatment can reduce postoperative recurrence (POR) rate. Methods We performed a retrospective, single-center observational cohort study in a tertiary hospital. All CD patients undergoing abdominal surgery from January 1st 2015 until June 30th 2019 were screened. Patients with CD who underwent ileocolic resection with ileocolic anastomosis were included. Depending on the postoperative management patients were divided in two groups: “wait and see” if medical treatment was not initiated before endoscopic evaluation 6 months after surgery (n=109), “treat” if medical treatment was initiated directly after surgery (n=49). Patients whose postoperative follow-up occurred in another center were excluded. Data were collected by review of the electronic medical charts and included patient demographics, disease characteristics (Montreal classification), medication, indication for surgery and POR assessment. POR was defined as clinical (PRO2 pain >1 or loose stool frequency >1.5), endoscopic (Rutgeerts score > i2a) or radiologic (disease activity on MR enterography necessitating treatment). Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. Results In total 158 patients met the inclusion criteria: 109 patients in the “wait and see” group and 49 in the “treat” group. The main baseline characteristics of the cohorts are summarized in figure 1. The main indication for surgery was stricturing disease in both groups (69.7% and 65.3%) followed by penetrating disease (42.2% and 24.5%) and refractory disease (6.4% and 20.4%). Postoperative management did not significantly influence the risk for POR (figure 2). The same was also observed in patients with known risk factors for POR (figure 3). Patients with a high body mass index (>25 kg/m²) had a significant greater risk for developing POR (HR 1.65, CI 1.09-2.5, p=0.019; figure 4). Conclusion There was no statistical significant difference in POR between immediate treatment after ICR and active surveillance with endoscopy 6 months after surgery. Prospective randomized trials with long follow-up are needed to further explore the use of adjuvant postoperative treatment to prevent POR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".