Complete clip closure with staged triple-lumen feeding tube reduces delayed adverse events after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Table 2 Univariate and multivariable logistic regression and interaction analyses of the factors associated with delayed adverse events after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Variable		Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
		OR (95%CI)	P value	aOR (95%CI)	P value	aOR (95%CI)	P value
Age (per 1 SD increase)		0.89 (0.77-1.03)	0.127	0.88 (0.76-1.02)	0.091	0.86 (0.74-1.00)	0.050
BMI (per 1 SD increase)		0.88 (0.76-1.02)	0.093	0.88 (0.76-1.03)	0.107	0.87 (0.75-1.02)	0.080
Gender	Male (reference)	1	< 0.001	1	0.016	1	0.010
	Female	0.53 (0.40-0.72)		0.69 (0.51-0.93)		0.68 (0.50-0.92)
Comorbidity	Without (reference)	1	< 0.001	1	0.084	1	0.130
	With	0.56 (0.41-0.76)		0.75 (0.55-1.04)		0.78 (0.56-1.08)
Admission year	2016-2020	1	< 0.001	1	0.015	1	0.040
	2021-2025	0.47 (0.30-0.73)		0.57 (0.36-0.89)		0.62 (0.39-0.98)
Lesion location	Non-ampullary area (reference)	1	0.061	1	0.005	1	0.005
	Ampullary area	1.52 (0.98-2.35)		1.91 (1.21-3.01)		1.92 (1.22-3.03)
Titanium clip closure status	Incomplete (reference)	1	< 0.001	1	< 0.001	1	< 0.001
	Complete	0.15 (0.11-0.20)		0.16 (0.12-0.22)		0.22 (0.14-0.36)
Drainage strategy	Nasogastric tube (reference)	1	< 0.001	1	0.005	1	0.480
	Triple-lumen feeding tube	0.47 (0.35-0.63)		0.64 (0.46-0.87)		0.83 (0.50-1.39)
Interaction: TCCS × DS						0.49 (0.26-0.93)	0.030

Model 1 Univariable logistic regression. Model 2 Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for prespecified confounders (age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, year of admission, lesion location, drainage strategy, and titanium clip closure status). Model 3 Multivariable logistic regression including the interaction term between titanium clip closure and drainage strategy in addition to the confounders in model 2. BMI: Body mass index; OR: Odds ratio; aOR: Adjusted odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; TCCS: Titanium clip closure status; DS: Drainage strategy; “×” indicates interaction.