AODWE-010 Severe gastrointestinal dysmotility related intestinal failure: chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, enteric dysmotility or a ‘pragmatic’ approach? experience from a national referral centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Gastrointestinal dysmotility (GID) is a recognised cause of Type 3 Intestinal Failure (IF). Diagnosis is challenging, with uncertain merits of subclassifying into chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIPO) and Enteric Dysmotility (ED)1. A ‘pragmatic’ algorithm for GID has been proposed to address these difficulties2. Retrospectively, we evaluated the performance of ED/CIPO diagnostic criteria and pragmatic GID criteria in predicting outcomes of patients with ‘dysmotility’ requiring home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Method Patients with primary dysmotility referred for HPN to a national IF Unit (1999–2015) were identified. 2 investigators reviewed casenotes for clinical histories, motility tests, imaging, full-thickness biopsies (FTB), breath tests, HPN and survival outcomes. Cases were excluded if they did not meet pragmatic GID criteria (morbidity + either >1 region abnormal motility test or positive FTB + small bowel (SB) involvement). Patients satisfying GID criteria were then sub-categorised into; ED (objective SB dysmotility), CIPO (ED criteria + non-mechanical SB dilatation) and ‘non-CIPO/ED’ if neither criteria were met. Outcomes were compared between subgroups. Results 44 patients met GID criteria (median age 40, 30 females, 18/44 with abnormal FTBs (myopathy n=12, neuropathy n=6) and median follow-up 5 years)), whereas 7 patients not meeting pragmatic criteria were excluded. HPN improved BMI (median pre 18.3 vs. post 21.2 kg/m2, p=0.01). HPN outcomes: survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 95%, 77% and 47%, median catheter-related blood stream infection rate (CRBSI) 0.5/1000 days, and 18% achieved HPN independence. 25/44 (57%) met criteria for CIPO, 12/44 (27%) ED and 7/44 (16%) were ‘non-CIPO/ED’ patients that met GID criteria. CIPO was associated with bacterial overgrowth (13/25 vs. 3/19, p=0.03), and HPN dependency (1/25 weaned off HPN vs. 7/19, p=0.01) when compared to the ED and ‘non-CIPO/ED’ groups. Other factors including the yield of FTBs, opiate-dependence and HPN complications (CRBSI, IF associated liver disease and catheter related venous thromboses) did not significantly differ between the three groups. Conclusion Our data emphasise important prognostic implications of CIPO diagnosis in the IF/GID population as a predictor of HPN dependency. Combining pragmatic evidence-based criteria with imaging to exclude CIPO is likely to give the maximum diagnostic and prognostic yield across the spectrum of GID. References . Wingate, et al. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology200217:S1–S14 . Paine, et al. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics201338(10):1209–1229. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".