A simple scoring system to assess the need for an endoscopic intervention in suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective cohort study

Three Simple Parameters on Admission to the Emergency Department are Predictors for Endoscopic Intervention in Patients with Suspected Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) need endoscopic intervention.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine factors that predict the need for endoscopic intervention at the time of admission to the emergency department.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnosis code K92.2 (gastrointestinal hemorrhage) who underwent upper endoscopy between February 2019 and February 2022, including patients diagnosed with nonvariceal UGIB in the emergency department in the study were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: those treated endoscopically and those not treated endoscopically. These two groups were compared according to clinical and laboratory findings at admission and independent predictors for endoscopic intervention were determined using multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Although 123 patients (30.3%) were treated endoscopically, endoscopic treatment was not required in 283 (69.7%) patients. Syncope, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) at admission were independent predictors for endoscopic intervention in the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for endoscopy time. The area under the curve of the syncope+MAP+BUN combination for endoscopic intervention was 0.648 (95% CI 0.588-0.708). Although the syncope+MAP+BUN combination predicted the need for intervention significantly better than pre-endoscopy Rockall and AIMS65 scores (p = 0.010 and p < 0.001, respectively), there was no significant difference in its comparison with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (p = 0.103).

CONCLUSIONS

Syncope, MAP, and BUN at admission were independent predictors for endoscopic therapy in patients with nonvariceal UGIB. Rather than using complicated scores, it would be more practical and easier to predict the need for endoscopic intervention with these three simple parameters, which are included in the Glasgow-Blatchford score.

Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB.

AREA COVERED

A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making.

EXPERT OPINION

The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.

Modified N score is helpful for identifying patients who need endoscopic intervention among those with black stools without hematemesis

OBJECTIVES

Although black stools are one of the signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, not all patients without hematemesis need endoscopic intervention. There is no apparent indicator to select who needs treatment thus far. The aim of this study was to establish a novel score that predicts the need for endoscopic intervention in patients with black stools without hematemesis.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 721 consecutive patients with black stools without hematemesis who underwent emergency endoscopy from two facilities. In the development stage (from January 2016 to December 2018), risk factors that predict the need for endoscopic intervention were determined from the data of 422 patients by multivariate logistic regression analysis, and a novel scoring system, named the modified Nagoya University score (modified N score), was developed. In the validation stage (from January 2019 to September 2020), we evaluated the diagnostic value of the modified N score for 299 patients.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed four predictive factors for endoscopic intervention: syncope, the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) level, and the BUN/creatinine ratio as positive indicators and anticoagulant drug use as a negative indicator. In the validation stage, the area under the curve of the modified N score was 0.731, and the modified N score showed a sensitivity of 82.0% and a specificity of 58.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modified N score, which consists of only four factors, can identify patients who need endoscopic intervention among those with black stools without hematemesis.

Prior oral proton-pump inhibitor use is associated with reduced severity of aspirin-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding in older people

Low-dose aspirin is commonly used for primary or secondary prophylaxis against cardiovascular disease in older people. However, the potential risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulceration and bleeding associated with low-dose aspirin use is often not appreciated by prescribers and older consumers. Among 133 serial patients with UGI bleeding, aspirin-users aged ≥70 years had a ninefold increased likelihood of overt UGI bleeding compared with non-users, reducing by 90% in regular proton-pump inhibitor users (adjusted odds ratio 0.10). We recommend risk-versus-benefit discussions when recommending aspirin to older people.

A novel scoring system to predict therapeutic intervention for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Various scoring systems have been developed to predict the need for endoscopic treatment in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). However, they have rarely been applied in clinical practice because the processes are complicated. The aim of this study was to establish a simple scoring system that predicts the need for endoscopic intervention in patients with NVUGIB. We retrospectively enrolled 509 consecutive patients with suspected NVUGIB who underwent emergency endoscopy. In the development cohort (from January 2016 to December 2018), risk factors that predict the need for endoscopic intervention were determined from 349 patients' data by multivariate logistic regression analysis. This led to the development of a novel scoring system named the Nagoya University score (N score). In the validation cohort (from January 2019 to September 2020), we evaluated the diagnostic value of the N score, the Hirosaki score, and the Glasgow-Blatchford scores (GBS) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves using another 160 patients' data. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed syncope, hematemesis, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and BUN/Cr as significant predictive factors for endoscopic intervention. In the validation study, the N score was superior to the GBS and equal to the Hirosaki score in predicting the endoscopic intervention (AUC, N score 0.776 [95% CI 0.702-0.851] vs. GBS 0.615 [0.523-0.708], Hirosaki 0.719 [0.636-0.803]). The N score revealed a sensitivity of 84.5% and a specificity of 61.8%. Our N score, which is consisted of only four factors, would select patients who require endoscopic intervention with high probability.

Superiority of urgent vs early endoscopic hemostasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding with high-risk stigmata

Background

Guidelines recommend that all patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) undergo endoscopy within 24 h. It is unclear whether a subgroup may benefit from an urgent intervention. We aimed to evaluate the influence of endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy on mortality in UGIB patients with high-risk stigmata (HRS).

Methods

Consecutive patients with suspected UGIB were enrolled in three Japanese hospitals with a policy to perform endoscopy within 24 h. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Endoscopic hemostasis and endoscopy timing (urgent, ≤6 h; early, >6 h) were evaluated in a regression model adjusting for age, systolic pressure, heart rate, hemoglobin, creatinine, and variceal bleeding in multivariate analysis. A propensity score of 1:1 matched sensitivity analysis was also performed.

Results

HRS were present in 886 of 1966 patients, and 35 of 886 (3.95%) patients perished. Median urgent-endoscopy time (n = 769) was 3.0 h (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0–4.0 h) and early endoscopy (n = 117) was 12.0 h (IQR, 8.5–19.0 h). Successful endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy were significantly associated with reduced mortality in multivariable analysis (odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.52; P = 0.0006, and OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16–0.87; P = 0.023, respectively). In a propensity-score-matched analysis of 115 pairs, adjusted comparisons showed significantly lower mortality of urgent vs early endoscopy (2.61% vs 7.83%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

A subgroup of UGIB patients, namely those harboring HRS, may benefit from endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy rather than early endoscopy in reducing mortality. Implementing triage scores that predict the presence of such lesions is important.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk scores in prediction for the clinical outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a life-threatening condition that needs risk stratification to guide clinical treatment. Which risk system could reflect the prognosis more accurately remains controversial. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the predictive value of GBS, AIMS65, Rockall (clinical Rockall score and full Rockall score), CTP and MELD.

METHOD

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, WANGFANG and CNKI were searched. Twenty-eight articles were included in the study. The Meta-DiSc software and MedCalc software were used to pool the predictive accuracy.

RESULTS

Concerning in-hospital mortality, CTP, AIMS65, MELD, Full-Rockall and GBS had a pooled AUC of 0.824, 0.793, 0.788, 0.75 and 0.683, respectively. CTP had the highest sensitivity of 0.910 (95% CI: 0.864-0.944) with a specificity of 0.666 (95% CI: 0.635-0.696). AIMS65 had the highest specificity of 0.774 (95% CI: 0.749-0.798) with a sensitivity of 0.679 (95% CI: 0.617-0.736). For follow-up mortality, MELD, AIMS65, CTP, Clinical Rockall, Full-Rockall and GBS showed a pooled AUC of 0.798, 0.77, 0.746, 0.704, 0.678 and 0.618, respectively. CTP had the highest specificity (0.806, 95% CI: 0.763-0.843) with a sensitivity of 0.722 (95% CI: 0.628-0.804). GBS had the highest sensitivity 0.800 (95% CI: 0.696-0.881) with a specificity of 0.412 (95% CI: 0.368-0.457). As for rebleeding, no score performed particularly well.

CONCLUSIONS

No risk scores were ideally identified by our systematic review. CTP was superior to other risk scores in identifying AVB patients at high risk of death in hospital and patients at low risk within follow-up. Guidelines have recommended the use of GBS to risk stratification of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, if the cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding is suspected oesophageal and gastric varices, extra care should be taken. Because in this meta-analysis, the ability of GBS was limited.Key messageCTP was superior in identifying AVB patients at high risk of death in hospital and low risk within follow-up.GBS, though recommended by the Guidelines, should be cautiously used when assessing AVB patients.

Novel and Simple Criteria for Predicting Mortality of Peptic Ulcer Disease

Objective Conventional risk scores of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) are based on many parameters, and their application in clinical practice is therefore limited. The aim of this study was to establish simple and reliable criteria for predicting PUD-associated mortality. Methods A total of 499 patients with PUD were divided into 2 groups: the training cohort (n=333) and the validation cohort (n=166). To minimize selection bias due to missing values, we used imputed datasets generated by the multiple imputation method (training-cohort dataset, n=33,300; validation-cohort dataset, n=16,600). Results In the training-cohort dataset, the heart rate-to-systolic blood pressure ratio (HR/SBP) and serum albumin (s-Alb) level were significant independent predictive factors for mortality according to the multivariate analysis [HR/SBP, odds ratio (OR): 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-2.80, p=0.028; s-Alb, OR: 0.23, 95% CI, 0.11-0.51, p<0.001]. The model comprising HR/SBP and s-Alb was able to detect mortality due to PUD with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.855. In the validation-cohort dataset, this model also showed good efficacy with an AUC of 0.835. The novel criteria combining HR/SBP and s-Alb developed by a decision tree analysis showed 73.3% sensitivity and 87.6% specificity for predicting mortality in the total-cohort dataset. Our criteria were superior to the Glasgow Blatchford and Rockall scores and similar to the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva scores for predicting mortality. Conclusion The combination of the HR/SBP ratio and s-Alb level is a good predictor of mortality in patients with PUD.

Prealbumin and D-dimer as Prognostic Indicators for Rebleeding in Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Determining the risk stratification of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) plays a vital role in treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Traditional scores like Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and AIMS65 score have been widely utilized in UGIB practice, however exhibiting limited practical use due to relative lack of user-friendly characters. Prealbumin as a nutritional indicator and d-dimer as a fibrinolytic activity monitor, are generally used to evaluate the overall nutritional and fibrinolytic condition in UGIB patients.

AIMS

Here, we explored the predictive value of these two markers in NVUGIB for evaluating severity and prognosis including rebleeding and surgery intervention.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-five patients suffering NVUGIB were enrolled. Their GBS, RS, and AIMS65 score, routine laboratory test results including prealbumin and d-dimer were determined after admission. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to define the independent predictors of rebleeding. ROC curves were generated to compare the suitability of prealbumin, d-dimer, and scores for rebleeding prediction.

RESULTS

The NVUGIB patients with rebleeding exhibited higher scores, white blood cell counts, d-dimer, CRP, proportion of surgery intervention, and longer hospital stay, but lower hematocrit, hemoglobin, calcium, prealbumin, and fibrinogen than those without rebleeding. The multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that prealbumin and d-dimer were independent predictors for rebleeding. Values of prealbumin and d-dimer were correlated with hospital stay, ulcer degrees, and surgery demand. The ROC curve analyses showed that prealbumin and d-dimer exhibited superior prediction value over the scoring systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Prealbumin and d-dimer are promising predictors for severity and prognosis in NVUGIB practice.

Use of age shock index in determining severity of illness in patients presenting to the emergency department with gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to make a comparison between classical shock index (SI), modified shock index (MSI), and age shock index (age SI) for predicting critical patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIS).

METHODS

The study, which was planned retrospectively, consisted of patients diagnosed with GIS bleeding at the ED admission. Triage time vital signs were used to calculate SI, MSI, and age SI. These results were compared with intensive care admission, endoscopic/colonoscopic (E/C) intervention, blood transfusion, and mortality criteria, which we define as adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

The study included 151 patients. Seventy-nine (52.32%) of the patients had at least one adverse outcome. Of the 151 patients, 19 (12.58%) had ICU admission, 27 (17.88%) underwent endoscopic/colonoscopic (E/C) intervention, 68 (45.03%) received a blood transfusion, and 6 (3.97%) died. There was a significant difference between patients who had no adverse outcome and those who had at least one adverse outcome in terms of SI, age SI, and MSI. We performed ROC curve analyses to evaluate the diagnostic performances of all indices for predicting adverse outcomes. AUC (area under the curve) values for age SI was the highest (age SI AUC = 0.711, p < 0.001; SI AUC = 0.616; MSI AUC = 0.617). The performance of the age SI was significantly higher than the SI (p = 0.013) and the MSI (p = 0.024) for predicting adverse outcomes. The cut-off value for the age shock index was 45.12.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with GIS bleeding, age SI, which can be easily calculated in triage, is more significant than SI and MSI for predicting the critical patient.

Horibe GI bleeding prediction score: a simple score for triage decision-making in patients with suspected upper GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a significant cause of inpatient admissions, no scoring method has proven to be accurate and simple as a standard for triage purposes. Therefore, we compared a previously described 3-variable score (1 point each for absence of daily proton pump inhibitor use in the week before the index presentation, shock index [heart rate/systolic blood pressure] ≥1, and blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ≥30 [urea/creatinine≥140]), the Horibe gAstRointestinal BleedING scoRe (HARBINGER), with the 8-variable Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) and 5-variable AIMS65 to evaluate and validate the accuracy in predicting high-risk features that warrant admission and urgent endoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with suspected UGIB between 2012 and 2015 were prospectively enrolled in 3 acute care Japanese hospitals. On presentation to the emergency setting, an endoscopy was performed in a timely fashion. The primary outcome was the prediction of high-risk endoscopic stigmata.

RESULTS

Of 1486 enrolled patients, 637 (43%) harbored high-risk endoscopic stigmata according to international consensus statements. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the HARBINGER was .76 (95% confidence interval [CI], .72-.79), which was significantly superior to both the GBS (AUC, .68; 95% CI, .64-.71; P < .001) and the AIMS65 (AUC, .54; 95% CI, .50-.58; P < .001). When the HARBINGER cutoff value was set at 1 to rule out patients who needed admission and urgent endoscopy, its sensitivity and specificity was 98.8% (95% CI, 97.9-99.6) and 15.5% (95% CI, 13.1-18.0), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The HARBINGER, a simple 3-variable score, provides a more accurate method for triage of patients with suspected UGIB than both the GBS and AIMS65.

Absence of high-risk stigmata predicts good prognosis even in severely anemic patients with suspected acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The need for a blood transfusion, defined as hemoglobin < 70 g/L, is the measure for assessing the risk levels in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, not all patients with a low hemoglobin level have a poor prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the clinical predictive factors associated with poor short-term prognosis in patients with a low hemoglobin level.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, all consecutive patients with suspected acute UGIB at Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center were enrolled between 2008 and 2015. Then, we extracted those who needed a blood transfusion (hemoglobin < 70 g/L) and explored the variables associated with all-cause mortality within 28 days after presentation.

RESULTS

Among 1307 patients, 311 needed a blood transfusion and 13 (4.2%) died from all causes. The presence of high-risk stigmata requiring endoscopic treatment (peptic ulcers; Forrest scores Ia, Ib and IIa; varices with current bleeding or signs of recent bleeding; and spurting or gushing bleeding or visible vessel in other diseases), diagnosed by emergency endoscopy, was a unique factor affecting mortality (odds ratio: 8.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.45-160, P = 0.01). Patients without high-risk stigmata neither died from UGIB nor had rebleeding, irrespective of the hemoglobin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients without high-risk stigmata showed a good prognosis even if they needed a blood transfusion. This result could facilitate triage of patients with suspected acute UGIB who only need a blood transfusion.

Elevated lactate level predicts intensive care unit admissions, endoscopies and transfusions in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and aims

Initial clinical management decision in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is often based on identifying high- and low-risk patients. Little is known about the role of lactate measurement in the triage of patients with acute GIB. We intended to assess if lactate on presentation is predictive of need for intervention in patients with acute GIB.

Patients and methods

We performed a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study including patients ≥18 years old presenting to emergency with acute GIB between January 2014 and December 2014. Intensive care unit (ICU) admission, inpatient endoscopy (upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy), and packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion were assessed as outcomes. Analyses included univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

Of 1,237 patients with acute GIB, 468 (37.8%) had venous lactate on presentation. Of these patients, 165 (35.2%) had an elevated lactate level (>2.0 mmol/L). Patients with an elevated lactate level were more likely to be admitted to ICU than patients with a normal lactate level (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74–5.01; p<0.001). Patients with an elevated lactate level were more likely to receive PRBC transfusion (AOR 3.65, 95% CI 1.76–7.55; p<0.001) and endoscopy (AOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.02–2.65; p=0.04) than patients with a normal lactate level.

Conclusion

Elevated lactate level predicts the need for ICU admissions, transfusions, and endoscopies in patients with acute GIB. Lactate measurement may be a useful adjunctive test in the triage of patients with acute GIB.

A New Scoring System to Predict Poor Clinical Outcomes in Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients with High-Risk Stigmata

AIMS

To explore the risk factors for rebleeding in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients with high-risk stigmata after endoscopic hemostasis and to develop a new scoring system for them.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted from January 2012 to June 2017. The logistic regression model was used to explore risk factors of poor clinical outcomes. Accuracy of new scoring systems was compared with Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) using receiver operating characteristics curve.

RESULTS

Two hundred nine patients were included. In multivariate regression analysis, systolic blood pressure, endoscopic hemostasis method, hemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine were identified as indicators for rebleeding. New scoring systems with 4 variables and 5 variables based on these 5 risk factors were chosen. The 4-variable scoring system outperformed GBS in predicting rebleeding while 5-variable scoring system outperformed RS and GBS in predicting rebleeding significantly. Score 2 was identified as the best cut-off of these 2 scoring systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Systolic blood pressure, endoscopic hemostasis method, hemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine were all associated with poor clinical outcomes. The new scoring systems had greater accuracy than RS and GBS in predicting rebleeding. Further external validation should be performed to verify the results.

Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performances of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), modified GBS (mGBS) and AIMS65 in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB).

METHODS

This study enrolled 320 consecutive patients with AUGIB. Patients at high and low risks of developing adverse clinical outcomes (rebleeding, the need of clinical intervention and death) were categorized according to the GBS, mGBS and AIMS65 scoring systems. The outcome of the patients were the occurrences of adverse clinical outcomes. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of three scoring systems were compared.

RESULTS

Irrespective of the systems used, the high-risk groups showed higher rates of rebleeding, intervention and death compared with the low-risk groups (P < 0.05). For the prediction of rebleeding, AIMS65 (AUROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.667-0.802) performed significantly better than GBS (AUROC 0.672, 95% CI 0.597-0.747; P < 0.01) and mGBS (AUROC 0.677, 95% CI 0.602-0.753; P < 0.01). For the prediction of interventions, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.769, 95% CI 0.668-0.870; mGBS: AUROC 0.745, 95% CI 0.643-0.847; AIMS65: AUROC 0.746, 95% CI 0.640-0.851). For the prediction of in-hospital mortality, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.796, 95% CI 0.694-0.898; mGBS: AUROC 0.803, 95% CI 0.703-0.904; AIMS65: AUROC 0.786, 95% CI 0.670-0.903).

CONCLUSIONS

The three scoring systems are reliable and accurate in predicting the rates of rebleeding, surgery and mortality in AUGIB. However, AIMS65 outperforms GBS and mGBS in predicting rebleeding.