Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Non-ulcer and Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Multicenter Study of Risk Prediction Using a Scoring System

The global epidemiology of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding in general population: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and potentially life-threatening clinical event. To date, the literature on the long-term global epidemiology of GIB has not been systematically reviewed.

AIM

To systematically review the published literature on the worldwide epidemiology of upper and lower GIB.

METHODS

EMBASE^® and MEDLINE were queried from 01 January 1965 to September 17, 2019 to identify population-based studies reporting incidence, mortality, or case-fatality rates of upper GIB (UGIB) or lower GIB (LGIB) in the general adult population, worldwide. Relevant outcome data were extracted and summarized (including data on rebleeding following initial occurrence of GIB when available). All included studies were assessed for risk of bias based upon reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 4203 retrieved database hits, 41 studies were included, comprising a total of around 4.1 million patients with GIB worldwide from 1980–2012. Thirty-three studies reported rates for UGIB, four for LGIB, and four presented data on both. Incidence rates ranged from 15.0 to 172.0/100000 person-years for UGIB, and from 20.5 to 87.0/100000 person-years for LGIB. Thirteen studies reported on temporal trends, generally showing an overall decline in UGIB incidence over time, although a slight increase between 2003 and 2005 followed by a decline was shown in 5/13 studies. GIB-related mortality data were available from six studies for UGIB, with rates ranging from 0.9 to 9.8/100000 person-years, and from three studies for LGIB, with rates ranging from 0.8 to 3.5/100000 person-years. Case-fatality rate ranged from 0.7% to 4.8% for UGIB and 0.5% to 8.0% for LGIB. Rates of rebleeding ranged from 7.3% to 32.5% for UGIB and from 6.7% to 13.5% for LGIB. Two main areas of potential bias were the differences in the operational GIB definition used and inadequate information on how missing data were handled.

CONCLUSION

Wide variation was seen in estimates of GIB epidemiology, likely due to high heterogeneity between studies however, UGIB showed a decreasing trend over the years. Epidemiological data were more widely available for UGIB than for LGIB.

Scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding

Few studies have focused on assessing the usefulness of scoring systems such as the Rockall score (RS), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and AIMS65 score for risk stratification and prognosis prediction in peptic ulcer bleeding patients. This study aimed to assess scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. A total of 682 peptic ulcer bleeding patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between January 2013 and December 2017 were found eligible for this study. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each score was calculated for predicting rebleeding, hospitalization, blood transfusion, and mortality. The median age of patients was 64 (interquartile range, 56-75) years. Of the patients, 74.9% were men, and 373 underwent endoscopic intervention. The median RS, GBS, and AIMS65 scores were significantly higher in patients who underwent endoscopic intervention than in those who did not. The AUROC of RS for predicting rebleeding was significantly higher than that of GBS (P = .022) or AIMS65 (P < .001). GBS best predicted the need for blood transfusion than either pre-RS (P = .013) or AIMS65 (P = .001). AIMS65 score showed the highest AUROC for mortality (0.652 vs. 0.622 vs. 0.691). RS was significantly associated with rebleeding (odds ratio, 1.430; P < .001) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.217; P < .001). The RS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems are acceptable tools for predicting clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding. RS is an independent prognostic factor of rebleeding and overall survival.

Impact of time to esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for reducing mortality and rebleeding, in the context of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To describe the decrease in the risk for mortality, rebleeding, and red blood cell transfusion, with the performance of urgent EGD, in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a search for cohort studies or controlled clinical trials, published from December 1966 to May 2020, that compared urgent EGD versus elective EGD in the management of adults with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, utilizing the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Our primary outcome was the hospital mortality comparison. The incidence of rebleeding and the mean number of red blood cell units transfused were also compared. A random effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies that met the eligibility criteria were included, involving 489,622 patients. We found no differences in the mortality of subjects exposed to urgent EGD versus elective EGD (RR 1.12 [0.72-1.72]). There was a significant increase in the risk for rebleeding (RR 1.30 [1.05-1.60]) in the subjects exposed to urgent EGD, and fewer red blood cell units were transfused in those patients (RR 0.52 [0.05-0.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent EGD in subjects with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding does not appear to have a significant impact on short-term mortality.

Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Rockall Score in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Introduction:

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding can be a life-threatening condition and requires careful evaluation from the very first episode in order to reduce the risk of rebleeding, hemorrhagic shock and death. The outcome of a patient with upper gastrointestinal bleeding depends on resuscitation measures taken during admission to the hospital and an adequate assessment of the patient’s risk level.

Aim:

The aim of the study is to compare Glasgow Blatchford score and Rockall score and to identify the most accurate score used in predicting unfavorable outcomes and the need for intervention.

Methods:

This study involves 237 patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The accuracy of the scoring systems was assessed by plotting receiver-operating characteristic curves (ROC curves) and was calculated for GBS and RS with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results:

As for mortality prediction, RS was superior to GBS (AUC 0.806 vs. 0.750). The GBS had a higher accuracy in detecting patients who needed transfusion units and was superior to the RS (AUC 0.810 vs.0.675). In predicting the need for intervention, RS was superior to GBS (AUC 0.707 vs. 0.636.

Conclusion:

GBS and RS are developed to help clinicians to triage patients appropriately in order to assess endoscopic therapy within a suitable time frame, as well as identify low risk patients for possible outpatient management. High accuracy of the GBS in predicting a need for transfusion represents an important endpoint to assess. RS was superior to GBS in predicting a need for intervention as well as mortality. Currently, a combination of these scoring systems is the best way for proper assessment.

Comparison of the quick SOFA score with Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scores in predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the common causes of mortality and morbidity. The Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are frequently used in determining the prognosis and predicting in-hospital adverse events, such as mortality, re-bleeding, hospital stay, and blood transfusion requirements. The quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is easy and swift to calculate. The commonly used scores and the qSOFA score were compared and why and when these scores are most useful was investigated.

METHOD

133 patients admitted to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding over the period of a year, were evaluated in this retrospective study. The RS, GBS and qSOFA score were calculated for each patient, and their relationship with in-hospital adverse events, such as length of hospitalization, rebleeding, endoscopic treatment, blood transfusion requirements, and mortality, was investigated.

RESULTS

The mean overall GBS was 9.72 ± 3.72 (0-19), while that of patients who did not survive was 14.0 ± 1.1 (13-16), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.901, a cutoff value of 12.5, and specificity (Spe) and sensitivity (Sen) of 1 and 0.82, respectively. The median value of the GBS, in terms of transfusion need, was 7.12 ± 4.01 (0-15). (AUC = 0.752, cut-off = 9.5, Spe = 0.79, Sen = 0.69). The median value of the qSOFA score, in terms of intensive care need, was 1.73 ± 0.7 (0-3) (AUC = 0.921, cut-off = 0.5, Spe = 0.93, Sen = 0.79). The RS median, in terms of re-bleeding, was 8.22 ± 0.97 (6-9).

CONCLUSION

Early use of risk stratification scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding is important due to the high risk of morbidity and mortality. All scoring systems were effective in predicting mortality, the need for intensive care, and re-bleeding. The GBS had a greater predictive power in terms of mortality and transfusion need, the qSOFA score for intensive care need, and the RS for re-bleeding. The simpler, more efficient, and more easily calculated qSOFA score can be used to estimate the severity of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.