Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Under General Anesthesia Compared to Conscious Sedation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used to diagnose and treat pancreatic and biliary disease. The current standard is to conduct ERCP under conscious sedation (CS). Patient movement and agitation during ERCP under CS can result in procedure failure and complications. Aiming to reduce procedure failure rates and complications, Kelowna General Hospital (KGH) in British Columbia, Canada transitioned to performing ERCP under general anesthesia (GA) as the practice standard. Objective To determine if conducting ERCP under GA compared to CS decreases procedure complications, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Methods The charts of 2,198 patients who underwent ERCP at KGH between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed. Before September 17, 2017, ERCP was performed under CS (n = 1,316). Afterwards, ERCP was conducted under GA (n = 882). Demographic, clinical, and procedural data were extracted. The data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. Results Procedure failure rates (CS = 9 percent, GA = 3 percent, P < 0.001) decreased in the GA cohort after adjusting for age, sex, and co-morbidities. Thirty-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, returns post-discharge, PEP, and cholangitis rates were similar between cohorts. Conclusion Performing ERCP under GA compared to CS resulted in an increase in procedural success rates. Other complication rates were similar between groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".