Analysis of Adverse Events of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement: Insights Across Various Indications and Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: of surgery for multiple procedures, including transmural fluid drainage. However, few studies have evaluated adverse events (AEs) associated with LAMS placement. Our aim was to characterize the rates of AEs associated with several LAMS placement strategies across different procedures and indications. Methods: A single-center retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on patients who underwent EUS-guided LAMS placement between 2015 and 2023 at a single institution. Technical and clinical success rates and rates of early and late AEs were analyzed. Comparisons of AE rates were determined for patients who had LAMS dilation versus those without dilation, patients who had plastic stent placement in addition to LAMS placement versus those with no plastic stents, and patients who had combined dilation and plastic stent procedures versus those with LAMS dilation only. Results: A total of 243 patients underwent EUS-guided LAMS interventions: 110 (45.3%) women and 133 (54.7%) men (mean age 53.7 ± 15.9 years). There were 96 (39.5%) patients who had at least one AE. Abdominal pain was the most common early and late AE. Plastic stent placement alongside LAMS placement was associated with a significantly higher rate of overall AEs (48.3% vs 29.9%; P = 0.009), late AEs (33% vs 17.9%; P = 0.021), and stent occlusion (5.7% vs 0%; P = 0.046). LAMS dilation was associated with higher rates of late AEs (34.2% vs 20.6%; P = 0.022) and stent occlusion (6.2% vs 1.0%; P = 0.049). Conclusions: LAMS placement showed high technical and clinical success rates across different indications with mostly mild AEs, suggesting that LAMSs may be safe and effective for pancreatic and biliary drainage.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".