MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323350957 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.239

A239 PATIENT OUTCOMES AFTER ENDOSCOPIC STENT INSERTION FOR MALIGNANT BILIARY OBSTRUCTION: A QUALITY ASSURANCE STUDY

2023· article· en· W4323350957 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Krahn, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten, Aldo J. Montaño‐Loza, Sergio Zepeda-Gómez, Vincent G. Bain, Richard Sultanian, Shawn Wasilenko, Gurpal Sandha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyStentPancreatic cancerEndoscopic ultrasoundSurgeryBiliary diseasePercutaneous transhepatic cholangiographyMalignancyGastric outlet obstructionPercutaneousRetrospective cohort studyCancerRadiologyPancreatitisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Management of pancreaticobiliary malignancy is complex and multi-disciplinary. Decompression of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) is preferentially achieved with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and biliary stent placement. This may improve the quality of life for patients with unresectable disease and improve outcomes in resectable/borderline-resectable disease. Purpose To assess quality outcomes in patients undergoing biliary stenting for MBO. Method This is a retrospective chart audit of patients referred to the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH) for suspected or confirmed MBO. The primary outcome was clinical success (reduction in bilirubin of >50% at 30 days). Secondary outcomes were technical success, type of stent used, need for re-intervention, adverse events (AEs), time from stent placement to surgery or cancer centre assessment, and survival. Result(s) Between January 2020 and June 2022, 222 patients (102 female, 46%) with a mean age of 70±1 years (range 34-93 years) underwent 290 ERCPs. The cause of MBO was pancreatic cancer in 130 (59%), cholangiocarcinoma in 32 (14%), ampullary cancer in 9 (4%), and others in 51 (23%). Technical success for stent insertion on first ERCP was achieved in 180/222 patients (81%) with only brushings performed in 2. Of the 40 patients (18%) with unsuccessful ERCP, further success was achieved by repeat ERCP (8), percutaneous transhepatic drainage (PTC, 15), PTC with rendezvous ERCP (1), surgical decompression (3), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (1). No biliary drainage was performed in 12 patients. Overall, ERCP with stent insertion was technically successful in 188/222 patients (85%). A total of 233 biliary stents were inserted (38 plastic, 195 metal). Clinical success was achieved in 20/38 patients (53%) with plastic stents and 151/181 patients (83%) with metal stents (Χ2 17.4 p<0.05). Adverse events were encountered in 33 patients (11%) with stent migration occurring in 8 (3%), cholangitis in 7 (2%), post-ERCP pancreatitis in 7 (2%), post-sphincterotomy bleeding in 4 (1%), and death in 2 (1%). Re-intervention was required in 36 patients (20%) after initial ERCP with successful stent placement. The re-intervention rate was significantly higher with plastic stents (14/27, 52%) than with metal stents (22/153, 14%) after initial ERCP (Χ2 20.1 p<0.001). The overall survival was a mean of 249±16 days (5-967) for patients with plastic stents and 248± 16 days (1-959) for those with metal stents. Survival was significantly worse in patients with unresectable disease vs resectable/borderline-resectable disease (Log rank 38.89, p<0.001), Figure 1. Image Conclusion(s) In MBO, metal stents appear to provide significantly better biliary drainage, with less need for re-intervention, but do not appear to be associated with any survival benefit over plastic stents. We hope that this quality assurance project will help in the development of a regional management pathway for optimizing the care of patients presenting with MBO. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207