Comparative Analysis of ERCP Success and Complications Among Age Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a vital procedure forhepatobiliary disease management. Though it boasts high overall success rates,the impact of patient age on outcomes remains uncertain, especially amongstelderly patients. With an aging population, it is crucial to determine the efficacyand safety of ERCP in different age groups. This study assesses ERCP success andcomplication rates across age groups. Our objective is to investigate whetherERCP remains a reliable and safe procedure for patients of all ages, particularly theelderly Methods A database with retrospective data from consecutive patients undergoing ERCP ata Canadian tertiary care centre between 2011 and 2020 was utilized. Baselinepatient characteristics and indications for ERCP were collected. Outcomes includedprocedural success, complications, and procedure duration. Patients werecategorized into four age groups:<40, 40-65, 65-80, and>80, with a specificsub-analysis for patients<80 and>80. Results This study included 6132 patients. Significant disparities were observed incomorbid conditions (p<0.0001), ASA status (p<0.0001), and the use ofanticoagulants or antiplatelet agents (p<0.0001). The most common indications forERCP were gallstones (45.1%), jaundice (19.2%), and ductal lesions (12.8%), withno significant variation among the age groups (p=0.5983). There was a significantdifference in procedural success (p=0.0005), with declining success in older agegroups (<40=91.3%, 40-65=87.4%, 65-80=86.2%,>80=84.9%), and thisdifference remained significant in the<80 and>80 sub-analysis (p=0.0133). Whilemean procedure duration was longer in older age groups (p<0.0001), incidence ofcomplications did not vary across all groups (p=0.1532-0.7622) or patients<80and>80 (p=0.0769-0.7128). Conclusions ERCP maintains a high success rate and safety profile across all age groups;however, success rates decline and procedure times increase significantly in olderpatients. Publication History Article published online: 15 April 2024 © 2024. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".