MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323353143 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.280

A280 DOES THE PLACEMENT OF A MANOMETRY PROBE WITH ENDOSCOPY AND CONSCIOUS SEDATION EFFECT MEASUREMENTS ON ENSUING HIGH RESOLUTION MANOMETRY? A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY IN PATIENTS POST-PERORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY

2023· article· en· W4323353143 on OpenAlexaff
Navjot Kaur Sandhu, Robert Bechara, David M. Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedationMedicineMidazolamMyotomyEndoscopyAnesthesiaHigh resolution manometryFentanylIntubationAchalasiaRetrospective cohort studySurgeryEsophagus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background High resolution manometry (HRM) is the gold standard for diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. This is traditionally conducted without sedation, using intranasal intubation with a manometry probe. Inserting the HRM probe immediately after endoscopic examination allows for endoscopic visualization and sedation for probe placement. This method is used commonly used for our patients who are post-peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). However, it is unclear whether short acting sedative drugs administered during endoscopy can affect contractility measurements during HRM. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine if conscious sedation with short-acting anaesthetic agents (Midazolam and Fentanyl) influenced HRM readings in patients undergoing evaluation post-perioral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Method We conducted a retrospective cohort study, comparing patients post-POEM who had endoscopy under conscious sedation with placement of the manometry probe versus those without preceeding endoscopy/sedation. Post-POEM patients who had undergone HRM over a 3-year period (2019-2022) were identified from motility lab records. Electronic charts were reviewed for data abstraction, and HRM parameters (resting lower esophageal pressure and integrated relaxation pressure) were determined for both groups and compared using t-tests, and error listed as standard error of the mean. Result(s) From 2019-2022, 15 patients underwent manometry using a non-endoscopic approach with no sedation and 25 underwent manometry following endoscopy with conscious sedation and placement of the probe during the procedure. In the latter group, HRM occurred within 2 hours of probe placement. The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were 115mcg (+/-29.7) and 3.3mg (+/-1.3) respectively. The mean end-expiratory lower esophageal sphincter pressure was 9.8 mmHg (+/- 2.9) in the non-endoscopic group and 26.24mmHg (+/- 5) in the endoscopy group (p <0.02). The median integrated relaxation pressure was 11.2 mmHg (+/-1.2) in the non-endoscopic group and 14.52mmHg (+/- 0.9) in those in the endoscopy group (p <0.04). Conclusion(s) In conclusion, this small, retrospective cohort study shows that manometry probe placement after endoscopy with conscious sedation may affect esophgeal HRM measurement parameters in the post-POEM patient population. Physicians should consider delaying HRM measurements for >4 hours to maximize clearance of the sedative medications. 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 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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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