MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1173 Evaluating the Predictors of Endoscopic Balloon Dilation Failure, Success, and Surgery Prevention in Crohn's Disease-Related Strictures: A 15-Year Experience at a Tertiary Care Center

2023· article· en· W4387751195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meera Iyengar, Brittany Baker, Mahmoud Rahal, Azizullah Beran, Justin Ceh, Hisham Wehbe, Monika Fischer, Megan Walker, Sashidhar Sagi, Matthew Bohm

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBalloon dilationCrohn's diseaseAnastomosisRetrospective cohort studySurgerySingle CenterStenosisDiseaseCohortColorectal surgeryBalloonInternal medicineAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Intestinal strictures affect one-third of individuals with Crohn’s disease (CD) within ten years of disease onset. Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is a minimally invasive procedure for managing fibrostenotic strictures in patients with CD. Long-term outcomes after EBD are poorly defined in the literature. The aims of this study are to evaluate the efficacy of EBD in delaying surgery for the treatment of strictures in patients with CD and identify clinical, endoscopic, and stricture-related factors associated with avoidance of surgery after five years of EBD. Methods: Retrospective cohort study including all patients with CD undergoing EBD at a tertiary academic center between 01/2007-12/2021. Data for demographics, disease characteristics, stricture characteristics, surgical history, medication history, need for surgical intervention, time to surgical intervention, and need for re-dilation were collected. Patient outcomes were followed from their index dilation up to five years post dilation. Results: 378 patients with CD diagnosis (51% female) with a mean age 45 years underwent EBD during the study period (681 total dilations). The location of the stricture was upper gastrointestinal in 30 patients (9%), ileal (35%), colonic (13%), ileocolonic (44%) in other patients. Among these patients, 118 (31%) required surgery for CD-related stricture during the five-year follow-up periods. Prednisone therapy was a predictor for progression to surgery post-EBD (P=0.002). 156 patients (43%) required re-dilation. Patients with De Novo strictures were more likely to undergo surgery compared to those with anastomotic strictures (P=0.034). Eight patients (2%) had complications with three of those requiring surgery. Conclusion: This is one of the largest single-center studies looking at outcomes of EBD for treatment of CD-related strictures. 69% of patients treated with EBD avoided surgery within a five-year follow-up period. Steroid therapy was predictive of surgical resection within five years. Similar to current literature, anastomotic strictures had better outcomes than De Novo. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our results (Table 1). Table 1. - Patient characteristics, Montreal classification at time of dilation, steroid use, stricture characteristics, and response to endoscopic dilation All Patients (n=378) Surgery post-dilation (n=118) No surgery post-dilation (n=260) P-value Female, n(%) 194 (51%) 68 (58%) 126 (49%) 0.098 Race, n(%) 0.100 White 356 (94%) 112 (95%) 244 (94%) Black 17 (5%) 4 (3%) 13 (5%) Age at dilation (years), mean (sd) 30 (16) 31 (16) 29 (15) 0.158 BMI, mean (sd) 27 (7) 27 (6) 27 (7) 0.935 Age at Diagnosis 0.469 A1 (< 16 years) 70 (21%) 20 (18%) 59 (23%) A2 (17-40 years) 205 (56%) 67 (59%) 134 (54%) A3 ( >40 years) 84 (23%) 27 (24%) 57 (22%) Behavior of Disease, n(%) 0.013 Stricturing 269 (72%) 72 (61%) 197 (77%) Stricturing and Penetrating 105 (28%) 46 (39%) 59 (23%) Location, n(%) 0.228 L1 (Ileal) 131 (35%) 47 (40%) 84 (33%) L2 (Colonic) 50 (13%) 11 (9%) 39 (15%) L3 (Ileocolonic) 163 (44%) 52 (44%) 111 (43%) L4 (Upper GI) 30 (9%) 8 (7%) 22 (8%) Perianal Disease, n(%) 109 (29%) 43 (36%) 66 (25%) Prednisone at dilation, n(%) 60 (16%) 29 (25%) 31 (12%) 0.002 Endoscopic Severity at time dilation, n(%) 0.256 Remission 51 (14%) 12 (11%) 39 (15%) Mild 119 (32%) 34 (30%) 85 (23%) Moderate 119 (32%) 35 (31%) 84 (23%) Severe 83 (22%) 32 (28%) 51 (20%) Location of Stricture, n(%) 0.255 Ileum 105 (28%) 42 (46%) 63 (25%) Ileocolonic 174 (46%) 46 (39%) 128 (50%) Colonic 43 (11%) 12 (10%) 31 (12%) Upper GI 24 (6%) 7 (6%) 17 (7%) Jejunal 7 (2%) 3 (3%) 4 (2%) Anal 22 (6%) 8 (7%) 14 (5%) Stricture type, n(%) 0.034 De Novo 214 (57%) 76 (65%) 138 (53%) Anastomotic 162 (43%) 41 (35%) 121 (47%) Need for redilation, n(%) 156 (43%) 49 (42%) 107 (43%) 0.847

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.262
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 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 venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→