A126 IMPACT OF TIME OF DAY ON PROCEDURAL OUTCOMES IN ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY (ERCP): ANALYSIS FROM A TERTIARY REFERRAL CENTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an established diagnostic and therapeutic tool for hepatobiliary disease. Given its technical demands, it remains one of the highest-risk endoscopic procedures. Addressing modifiable factors, such as operator fatigue, may mitigate procedural risk. In colonoscopy, there is conflicting data on whether procedure time of day, as a surrogate of operator fatigue, affects outcomes, with some literature demonstrating decreased procedure completion and polyp detection rates in the afternoon. There is a paucity of data evaluating this potential relationship in ERCP. Aims To evaluate the impact of procedure time of day on procedural success and short-term adverse outcomes in patients undergoing ERCP. Methods A retrospective review of ERCP's performed on adult patients at our tertiary referral center from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the procedural success rate, defined as successful navigation to the papilla, selective duct cannulation and cholangiography, and realization of the intended therapeutic goals. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, rate of deep ductal cannulation, rate of sphincterotomy, and short-term (30-day) adverse events (immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, pancreatitis, perforation). Statistical analysis was conducted using R. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test of independence or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were compared using T-tests or the Mann-Whitney-U test. Results A total of 5755 ERCP’s were performed between 8 AM – 6 PM; 2863 were performed before 12PM (AM group) and 2892 after 12PM (PM group). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts, with the exception of hypertension (33.7% AM vs 30.1% PM; p=0.003), and anticoagulation (20.3% AM vs 18.3% PM; p=0.05). In both groups, the most common ERCP indication was choledocholithiasis. The primary operators in both cohorts were clinical fellows. There was no difference in procedural success rate (87.0 % AM vs 86.7% PM; p = 0.72), procedure duration (33.6 minutes AM vs 32.9 minutes PM; p = 0.29), rates of deep cannulation (82.6% AM vs 83.0% PM; p = 0.81) and sphincterotomies (63.2% vs 62.7%; p = 0.68). Rate of adverse events were similar, with slightly higher rates of immediate bleeding in the AM group (5.0% AM vs 3.8% PM; p = 0.03). Results were similar in a subgroup analysis of patients with altered anatomy. Conclusions In this large retrospective review of ERCPs performed at a tertiary referral center, the procedure time of day did not impact procedural success rate. There were slightly higher rates of immediate bleeding in the AM group, though this may be explained by higher rates of anticoagulation in that group. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".