A95 OUTCOMES OF ERCP UNDER CONSCIOUS SEDATION COMPARED TO GENERAL ANESTHESIA: A PRE-POST RETROSPECTIVE COHORT REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure used to address pathologies of the pancreatic and biliary systems. ERCP performed under conscious sedation (CS) is the current standard of care but is limited by patient movement and agitation, especially in the context of lengthy or technically complex cases. Recent literature suggests that general anesthesia (GA) may optimize patient comfort and safety while reducing complications such as pancreatitis, perforation, and mortality. In October 2017, Kelowna General Hospital (KGH) transitioned the standard anesthesia modality for ERCP from CS to GA. Aims To investigate differences in complications and patient outcomes for ERCP performed under CS (n=1334) before the practice change compared to GA (n=899) after the practice change. Methods Our study is a pre-post retrospective chart review of 2,233 patients who underwent ERCP between 2015 and 2020 at KGH. Demographic, clinical, procedural and outcome data were extracted from patient charts, and the data in CS and GA groups were compared using univariate statistical analysis. Results Preliminary results show rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis (6% vs. 4%; p=0.018) and rates of procedure failure (8% vs. 3%; p<0.001) were statistically significant and higher under CS before the practice change compared to under GA afterwards, respectively. The 30-day mortality rates, ICU transfer rates, return rates post-discharge, and rates of cholangitis were similar. Our study showed improvements in several patient safety outcomes, including lower procedure failure rates and lower post-ERCP pancreatitis rates with ERCP performed under GA compared to CS. Conclusions Performing ERCP under GA rather than under CS is a valuable practice change that should be considered by ERCP-related programs across all health authorities due to its potential to optimize both patient comfort and safety significantly. The reduction in complication rates may have implications for net cost savings in the long term. Funding Agencies Kelowna General Hospital Foundation, Interior Health
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".