Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding

Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Refractory to Endoscopic Management: Indications and Role of Interventional Radiology

For over 60 years, diagnostic and interventional radiology have been heavily involved in the evaluation and treatment of patients presenting with gastrointestinal bleeding. For patients who present with upper GI bleeding and have a contraindication to endoscopy or have an unsuccessful attempt at endoscopy for identifying or controlling the bleeding, interventional radiology is often consulted for evaluation and consideration of catheter-based intervention.

Comparison and validation of the Japanese score and other scoring systems in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: A retrospective study

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the most urgent medical conditions, with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) accounting for most gastrointestinal bleeding cases. The Japanese scoring system was developed to predict the probability of intervention in patients with UGIB, and it is more effective than other scoring systems, according to several studies. This study aimed to verify whether the Japanese scoring system is better than other scoring systems in predicting the probability of intervention when limited to PUB in patients with UGIB. We enrolled patients who presented with symptoms of UGIB and were diagnosed with peptic ulcers using endoscopy. The performances of the scoring systems in predicting patient outcomes were validated and compared using the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. Additionally, we used the chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and the t test to analyze the association between the patients characteristics and clinical outcomes. Of the 1228 patients diagnosed with peptic ulcers, 90.6% underwent endoscopy. rebleeding occurred in 12.5% of the patients, and 2.5% of the patients died within 30 days. The Japanese score was the most effective in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention for PUB. Sex, systolic blood pressure, hematemesis, syncope, blood urea nitrogen level, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists score were predictive factors for the probability of endoscopic intervention in patients with PUB. The Japanese score is an effective predictor of the probability of endoscopic intervention in patients with PUB.

Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Age, blood tests and comorbidities and AIMS65 risk scores outperform Glasgow-Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a life-threatening condition with high mortality rates.

AIM

To compare the performance of pre-endoscopic risk scores in predicting the following primary outcomes: In-hospital mortality, intervention (endoscopic or surgical) and length of admission (≥ 7 d).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 363 patients presenting with upper GI bleeding from December 2020 to January 2021. We calculated and compared the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) of Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PERS), albumin, international normalized ratio, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure, age older than 65 (AIMS65) and age, blood tests and comorbidities (ABC), including their optimal cut-off in variceal and non-variceal upper GI bleeding cohorts. We subsequently analyzed through a logistic binary regression model, if addition of lactate increased the score performance.

RESULTS

All scores had discriminative ability in predicting in-hospital mortality irrespective of study group. AIMS65 score had the best performance in the variceal bleeding group (AUROC = 0.772; P < 0.001), and ABC score (AUROC = 0.775; P < 0.001) in the non-variceal bleeding group. However, ABC score, at a cut-off value of 5.5, was the best predictor (AUROC = 0.770, P = 0.001) of in-hospital mortality in both populations. PERS score was a good predictor for endoscopic treatment (AUC = 0.604; P = 0.046) in the variceal population, while GBS score, (AUROC = 0.722; P = 0.024), outperformed the other scores in predicting surgical intervention. Addition of lactate to AIMS65 score, increases by 5-fold the probability of in-hospital mortality (P < 0.05) and by 12-fold if added to GBS score (P < 0.003). No score proved to be a good predictor for length of admission.

CONCLUSION

ABC score is the most accurate in predicting in-hospital mortality in both mixed and non-variceal bleeding population. PERS and GBS should be used to determine need for endoscopic and surgical intervention, respectively. Lactate can be used as an additional tool to risk scores for predicting in-hospital mortality.

Utility of the CANUKA Scoring System in the Risk Assessment of Upper GI Bleeding

BACKGROUND

The Canada-United Kingdom-Adelaide (CANUKA) score was developed to stratify patients who experience upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) to predict who could be discharged from the emergency department. Our aim was to determine if the CANUKA score could be utilized for UGIB in-patients undergoing endoscopy in predicting adverse outcomes. We additionally sought to establish a CANUKA score cut point to predict adverse outcomes and in-hospital mortality and compare this to established scoring systems.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 all patients who underwent upper endoscopy after admission for UGIB were identified. We assigned a CANUKA score and compared the area under the receiver operating curve to established scoring systems.

RESULTS

Our data set included 641 patients, with a mean age of 59.5±14.5 years. A CANUKA score ≥10 was associated with an adverse outcome [unadjusted odds ratio, 3.08 (1.79, 5.27)]. No patients experienced an adverse outcome with a CANUKA score <4. No patients died with a CANUKA score <6. Those with a CANUKA score of <10 had an in-hospital mortality of 2.1% compared with 6.8% for those with a score ≥10 ( P =0.008). AIMS65 had the best area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.809) for predicting mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The CANUKA score may serve utility as a predictor of adverse outcomes and mortality in patients admitted with UGIB undergoing endoscopy. Future studies, ideally prospective and multicenter, will be needed to validate its clinical utility.

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.

Derivation and validation of a novel risk score to predict need for haemostatic intervention in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (London Haemostat Score)

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, which takes up considerable healthcare resources. However, only approximately 20%-30% of bleeds require urgent haemostatic intervention. Current standard of care is for all patients admitted to hospital to undergo endoscopy within 24 hours for risk stratification, but this is difficult to achieve in practice, invasive and costly.

AIM

To develop a novel non-endoscopic risk stratification tool for AUGIB to predict the need for haemostatic intervention by endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatments. We compared this with the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS).

DESIGN

Model development was carried out using a derivation (n=466) and prospectively collected validation cohort (n=404) of patients who were admitted with AUGIB to three large hospitals in London, UK (2015-2020). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables that were associated with increased or decreased chances of requiring haemostatic intervention. This model was converted into a risk scoring system, the London Haemostat Score (LHS).

RESULTS

The LHS was more accurate at predicting need for haemostatic intervention than the GBS, in the derivation cohort (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 0.82; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.77; p<0.001) and validation cohort (AUROC 0.80; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.85 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.78; p<0.001). At cut-off scores at which LHS and GBS identified patients who required haemostatic intervention with 98% sensitivity, the specificity of the LHS was 41% vs 18% with the GBS (p<0.001). This could translate to 32% of inpatient endoscopies for AUGIB being avoided at a cost of only a 0.5% false negative rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The LHS is accurate at predicting the need for haemostatic intervention in AUGIB and could be used to identify a proportion of low-risk patients who can undergo delayed or outpatient endoscopy. Validation in other geographical settings is required before routine clinical use.

Risk factors of active upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with COVID-19 infection and the effectiveness of PPI prophylaxis

Background

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most impactful complications in patients hospitalized from COVID-19 infection. Limited study has focused on patients with upper GI bleeding (UGIB). This study aimed to identify the risk factors of patients who were hospitalized from COVID-19 infection and developed UGIB as well as the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in those patients.

Methods

This study was comprised of two phases. The first phase was the retrospective enrollment of patients who were admitted due to COVID-19 infection and developed UGIB between April and August 2021 to evaluate the associated factors of active UGIB. The second phase was a retrospective analysis after PPI prophylaxis protocol from September – October 2021 to assess the benefit of PPI use in those patients.

Results

Of 6,373 patients hospitalized, 43 patients (0.7%) had evidence of UGIB. The majority were male 28 (65.1%) with a mean age of 69.1 ± 11.8 years. Twenty-four of 43 patients (55.8%) needed mechanical ventilation, 35 patients (81.4%) received systemic corticosteroids, and 10 patients (23.3%) were taking anticoagulants for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis. Seven of 43 patients (16%) had active UGIB. There was no significant difference in the number of patients taking antiplatelets, anticoagulants, or steroids and the severity of COVID-19 infection between the two groups. An emergency endoscopy or endoscopic hemostasis were performed in 6/7 (85.7%) patients. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed two significant factors associated with active UGIB including higher of Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) per point (OR = 7.89; 95%CI 1.03–72.87; p = 0.04) and an absence of PPI use (OR 4.29; 95%CI 1.04–19.51; p = 0.04). After prescribing PPI as a prophylaxis, there was a slightly lower incidence of UGIB (0.6% vs 0.7%) in addition to an absence of active UGIB (0% vs 16%).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that the absence of PPI and higher GBS were significant risk factors for active UGIB which required therapeutic endoscopy in patients with COVID-19 infection. We suggest that short-term PPI prophylaxis should be prescribed in those patients once they need hospitalization regardless of the severity of COVID-19 infection to minimize the severity of UGIB.

A Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score of >2 Is a Poor Predictor of Endoscopic Intervention in Nonvariceal Upper GI Bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Recent data show that a Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) >2 does not identify patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding who benefit from inpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). This study aimed to determine the rate of endoscopic hemostatic interventions (HI) in patients with nonvariceal acute GI bleeding (NVAUGIB) admitted with a GBS >2. Secondary aims included comparison of clinical outcomes in patients with and without HI and cost of nontherapeutic EGDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of patients admitted to a referral hospital for NVAUGIB from January 2015 to December 2017. Mortality, blood transfusion rates, length of stay, length of intensive care unit stay, and cost of a nontherapeutic EGD were outcomes of interest. Patients 18 years of age and older of both sexes were included. The accuracy of the GBS >2 cutoff was determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 357 patients were included and only 58 (16.2%) required HI. The area under the curve for GBS >2 as a predictor of HI was 0.57. The performance of HI did not influence mortality (P = 0.33), blood transfusion rates (P = 0.51), length of stay (P = 0.2), or length of intensive care unit stay (P = 0.36). The estimated cost of performing nontherapeutic EGD was approximately $855,000 for the 299 patients who did not need HI.

CONCLUSIONS

A GBS cutoff of >2 is not an accurate criterion to triage patients with NVAUGIB for inpatient emergent EGD. More clinically meaningful and cost-effective methods to triage these patients are necessary.

Clinical outcomes of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding according to the risk indicated by Glasgow-Blatchford risk score-computed tomography score in the emergency room

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a significant emergency situation with a mortality rate of 2% to 10%. Therefore, initial risk stratification is important for proper management. We aimed to evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for risk stratification in patients with acute UGI bleeding in the emergency room (ER).

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with UGI bleeding in the ER. Glasgow-Blatchford risk score-computed tomography (GBS-CT) was assessed using a combination of GBS and the MDCT scan scoring system.

RESULTS

Of the 297 patients with UGI bleeding, 124 (41.8%) underwent abdominal MDCT. Among them, 90.3% were classified as high-risk by GBS, and five patients died (4.0%). Rebleeding occurred in nine patients (7.3%). The high-risk GBS-CT group had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (10.5% in high-risk vs. 1.4% in moderate risk vs. 0% in low-risk, p = 0.049), transfusion amount (p &lt; 0.001), and endoscopic hemostasis (p &lt; 0.001) compared to the moderate- and low-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding MDCT scans to the existing validated prognosis model when predicting the risk of UGI bleeding in patients in the ER plays a significant role in determining in-hospital mortality, transfusions, and the need for endoscopic hemostasis.

A Novel Prediction Tool for Endoscopic Intervention in Patients with Acute Upper Gastro-Intestinal Bleeding

(1) Background: Predicting which patients with upper gastro-intestinal bleeding (UGIB) will receive intervention during urgent endoscopy can allow for better triaging and resource utilization but remains sub-optimal. Using machine learning modelling we aimed to devise an improved endoscopic intervention predicting tool. (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with UGIB between 2012−2018 who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) during hospitalization. We assessed the correlation between various parameters with endoscopic intervention and examined the prediction performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and the pre-endoscopic Rockall score for endoscopic intervention. We also trained and tested a new machine learning-based model for the prediction of endoscopic intervention. (3) Results: A total of 883 patients were included. Risk factors for endoscopic intervention included cirrhosis (9.0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), syncope at presentation (19.3% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.01), early EGD (6.8 h vs. 17.0 h, p < 0.01), pre-endoscopic administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) (43.4% vs. 31.0%, p < 0.01) and erythromycin (17.2% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.01). Higher GBS (11 vs. 9, p < 0.01) and pre-endoscopy Rockall score (4.7 vs. 4.1, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with endoscopic intervention; however, the predictive performance of the scores was low (AUC of 0.54, and 0.56, respectively). A combined machine learning-developed model demonstrated improved predictive ability (AUC 0.68) using parameters not included in standard GBS. (4) Conclusions: The GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall score performed poorly in endoscopic intervention prediction. An improved predictive tool has been proposed here. Further studies are needed to examine if predicting this important triaging decision can be further optimized.

Prognostic Analysis of Liver Cirrhosis Patients with Cerebral Infarction and/or Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

To explore the risk factors of gastrointestinal hemorrhage and/or cerebral infarction complications in liver cirrhosis and provide evidence for early prevention, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of liver cirrhosis.

Methods

200 liver cirrhosis patients were analyzed: liver cirrhosis (n = 78), liver cirrhosis complicated with cerebral infarction (n = 43), liver cirrhosis complicated with gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n = 57), and liver cirrhosis complicated with gastrointestinal hemorrhage and cerebral infarction (n = 22). The incidence of disease in each group of patients at different times was calculated. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the risk factors of liver cirrhosis patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage and cerebral infarction. After 12 months of follow-up, the mortality rate of each group was calculated.

Results

The incidences of gastrointestinal hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage combined with cerebral infarction in patients with liver cirrhosis were 21.5%, 28.5%, and 11%, respectively. The width of the portal vein, D-2 polymer, albumin (ALB), and hemoglobin (Hb) were predictors of gastrointestinal hemorrhage and cerebral infarction in patients with liver cirrhosis. Age, hypertension, bleeding history, infection, portal vein width, and D-2 polymer were confirmed as risk factors for gastrointestinal hemorrhage and cerebral infarction in patients with liver cirrhosis. ALB and Hb were independent protective factors. Patients with liver cirrhosis and gastrointestinal hemorrhage with cerebral infarction had the worst survival.

Conclusion

Age, hypertension, bleeding history, infection, portal vein width, and D-2 polymer are all independent risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding and cerebral infarction, while ALB and Hb are independent protective factors.

The effect of the shock index and scoring systems for predicting mortality among geriatric patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an important cause of mortality and morbidity among geriatric patients.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the shock index and other scoring systems are effective predictors of mortality and prognosis among geriatric patients presenting to the emergency department with complaints of upper GI bleeding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective cohort study in an emergency department in Bursa, Turkey.

METHODS

Patients over 65 years admitted to a single-center, tertiary emergency service between May 8, 2019, and April 30, 2020, and diagnosed with upper GI bleeding were analyzed. 30, 180 and 360-day mortality prediction performances of the shock index and the Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS-65 scores were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients who met the criteria were included in the study. The shock index (P < 0.001) and AIMS-65 score (P < 0.05) of the patients who died within the 30-day period were found to be significantly different, while the shock index (P < 0.001), Rockall score (P < 0.001) and AIMS-65 score (P < 0.05) of patients who died within the 180-day and 360-day periods were statistically different. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for predicting 360-day mortality, the area under the curve (AUC) value was found to be 0.988 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.971-1.000; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The shock index measured among geriatric patients with upper GI bleeding at admission seems to be a more effective predictor of prognosis than other scoring systems.

Association of inferior vena cava diameter ratio with outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding

Objective

To examine the association of inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter ratio measured using computed tomography with outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

Methods

A single-center retrospective observational study was conducted on consecutive patients with GIB who presented to the emergency department. The IVC diameter ratio was calculated by dividing the maximum transverse and anteroposterior diameters perpendicular to it. The association of the IVC diameter ratio with outcomes was examined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of the IVC diameter ratio was calculated, and the sensitivity and specificity, including the cutoff values, were computed.

Results

In total, 585 patients were included in the final analysis. The in-hospital mortality rate was 4.6% (n=27). The IVC diameter ratio was significantly associated with higher in-hospital mortality in multivariable logistic regression analysis (odds ratio, 1.793; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.239–2.597; P=0.002). The AUC of the IVC diameter ratio for in-hospital mortality was 0.616 (95% CI, 0.498–0.735). With a cutoff of the IVC diameter ratio (≥2.1), the sensitivity and specificity for predicting in-hospital mortality were 44% (95% CI, 26%–65%) and 71% (95% CI, 67%–75%), respectively.

Conclusion

The IVC diameter ratio was independently associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with GIB. However, the AUC of the IVC diameter ratio for in-hospital mortality was low.

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.

Prognostic factors associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding based on the French multicenter SANGHRIA trial

Background and study aims  Prognostic and risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) might have changed overtime because of the increased use of direct oral anticoagulants and improved gastroenterological care. This study was undertaken to assess the outcomes of UGIB in light of these new determinants by establishing a new national, multicenter cohort 10 years after the first. Methods  Consecutive outpatients and inpatients with UGIB symptoms consulting at 46 French general hospitals were prospectively included between November 2017 and October 2018. They were followed for at least for 6 weeks to assess 6-week rebleeding and mortality rates and factors associated with each event. Results  Among the 2498 enrolled patients (mean age 68.5 [16.3] years, 67.1 % men), 74.5 % were outpatients and 21 % had cirrhosis. Median Charlson score was 2 (IQR 1-4) and Rockall score was 5 (IQR 3-6). Within 24 hours, 83.4 % of the patients underwent endoscopy. The main causes of bleeding were peptic ulcers (44.9 %) and portal hypertension (18.9 %). The early in-hospital rebleeding rate was 10.5 %. The 6-week mortality rate was 12.5 %. Predictors significantly associated with 6-week mortality were initial transfusion (OR 1.54; 95 %CI 1.04-2.28), Charlson score > 4 (OR 1.80; 95 %CI 1.31-2.48), Rockall score > 5 (OR 1.98; 95 %CI 1.39-2.80), being an inpatient (OR 2.45; 95 %CI 1.76-3.41) and rebleeding (OR 2.6; 95 %CI 1.85-3.64). Anticoagulant therapy was not associated with dreaded outcomes. Conclusions  The 6-week mortality rate remained high after UGIB, especially for inpatients. Predictors of mortality underlined the weight of comorbidities on outcomes.

Comparing the Performance of the ABC, AIMS65, GBS, and pRS Scores in Predicting 90-day Mortality Or Rebleeding Among Emergency Department Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Multicenter Study

Background and Objectives

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common problem that can cause significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the performance of the ABC score (ABC), the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and the pre-endoscopic Rockall score (pRS) in predicting 90-day mortality or rebleeding among patients with acute UGIB.

Methods

This was a prospective multicenter study conducted at 20 tertiary hospitals in China. Data were collected between June 30, 2020 and February 10, 2021. An area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis was used to compare the performance of the four scores in predicting 90-day mortality or rebleeding.

Results

Among the 1072 patients included during the study period, the overall 90-day mortality rate was 10.91% (117/1072) and the rebleeding rate was 12.03% (129/1072). In predicting 90-day mortality, the ABC and pRS scores performed better with an AUC of 0.722 (95% CI 0.675-0.768; P<0.001) and 0.711 (95% CI 0.663-0.757; P<0.001), respectively, compared to the AIMS-65 (AUC, 0.672; 95% CI, 0.624-0.721; P<0.001) and GBS (AUC, 0.624; 95% CI, 0.569-0.679; P<0.001) scores. In predicting rebleeding in 90 days, the AUC of all scores did not exceed 0.70.

Conclusion

In patients with acute UGIB, ABC and pRS performed better than AIMS-65 and GBS in predicting 90-day mortality. The performance of each score is not satisfactory in predicting rebleeding, however. Newer predictive models are needed to predict rebleeding after UGIB.

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.

Glasgow-Blatchford Score Predicts Post-Discharge Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure

Background: The Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) is one of the most widely used scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). However, the clinical significance of the GBS in predicting GIB in patients with heart failure (HF) remains unclear. Methods and Results: We conducted a prospective observational study in which we collected the clinical data of a total of 2236 patients (1130 men, median 70 years old) who were admitted to Fukushima Medical University Hospital for acute decompensated HF. During the post-discharge follow-up period of a median of 1235 days, seventy-eight (3.5%) patients experienced GIB. The GBS was calculated based on blood urea nitrogen, hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and history of hepatic disease. The survival classification and regression tree analysis revealed that the accurate cut-off point of the GBS in predicting post-discharge GIB was six points. The patients were divided into two groups: the high GBS group (GBS > 6, n = 702, 31.4%) and the low GBS group (GBS ≤ 6, n = 1534, 68.6%). The Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that GIB rates were higher in the high GBS group than in the low GBS group. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for age, malignant tumor, and albumin indicated that a high GBS was an independent predictor of GIB (hazards ratio 2.258, 95% confidence interval 1.326–3.845, p = 0.003). Conclusions: A high GBS is an independent predictor and useful risk stratification score of post-discharge GIB in patients with HF.

Semiautomated Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score helps direct bed placement for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

The Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) was designed to identify patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who do not require hospitalisation. It may also help stratify patients unlikely to benefit from intensive care.

DESIGN

We reviewed patients assigned a GBS in the emergency room (ER) via a semiautomated calculator. Patients with a score ≤7 (low risk) were directed to an unmonitored bed (UMB), while those with a score of ≥8 (high risk) were considered for MB placement. Conformity with guidelines and subsequent transfers to MB were reviewed, along with transfusion requirement, rebleeding, length of stay, need for intervention and death.

RESULTS

Over 34 months, 1037 patients received a GBS in the ER. 745 had an UGIB. 235 (32%) of these patients had a GBS ≤7. 29 (12%) low-risk patients were admitted to MBs. Four low-risk patients admitted to UMB required transfer to MB within the first 48 hours. Low-risk patients admitted to UMBs were no more likely to die, rebleed, need transfusion or require more endoscopic, radiographic or surgical procedures than those admitted to MBs. No low-risk patient died from GIB. Patients with GBS ≥8 were more likely to rebleed, require transfusion and interventions to control bleeding but not to die.

CONCLUSION

A semiautomated GBS calculator can be incorporated into an ER workflow. Patients with a GBS ≤7 are unlikely to need MB care for UGIB. Further studies are warranted to determine an ideal scoring system for MB admission.

Prospective Comparison of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background/Aims

This study aimed to determine the performance of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and to compare the results between patients with nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) and those with variceal UGIB (VUGIB).

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study between March 2016 and December 2017. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed for all outcomes for comparison. The associations of all three scores with mortality were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Of the total of 337 patients with UGIB, 267 patients (79.2%) had NVUGIB. AIMS65 was significantly associated (odds ratio [OR], 1.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.148–2.620), RS was marginally associated (OR, 1.225; 95% CI, 0.973–1.543), but GBS was not associated (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890–1.163) with mortality risk in patients with UGIB. However, all three scores accurately predicted all other outcomes (all p<0.05) except rebleeding (p>0.05). Only AIMS65 precisely predicted mortality, the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint (all p<0.05) in patients with VUGIB.

Conclusions

AIMS65 is superior to GBS and RS in predicting mortality in patients with UGIB, and also precisely predicts the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. No scoring system could satisfactorily predict rebleeding in all patients with UGIB.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-led multisociety consensus care bundle for the early clinical management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB. Commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task force was assembled to produce an evidence-based and consensus-based care bundle detailing key interventions to be performed within 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion Service of the UK. A formal literature search was conducted and international AUGIB guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and statements were formulated and subjected to anonymous electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and Standards Committee and approved by all stakeholder groups. Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle items, contained within 6 management domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review. A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB.

Clinical utility of pre-endoscopy risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Introduction: Acute upper-gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, with an incidence of 103-172 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom (UK) and mortality of 2% to 10%. Early and accurate prediction of the severity of an AUGIB episode may help guide management, including in or outpatient management, level of care required, and timing of endoscopy. This article aims to address the clinical utility of the various pre-endoscopic risk assessment tools used in AUGIB.Areas covered: The authors undertook a literature review of the current evidence on the pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores. Additional the authors discuss the recently published novel risk assessment scores.Expert opinion: The evidence shows that GBS is the most clinically useful risk assessment score in correctly identifying very low-risk patients suitable for outpatient management. At present, research is ongoing to assess machine learning in the assessment of patients presenting with AUGIB. More research is needed but it shows promise for the future.

Lactate Level Predicts Mortality in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background and Objectives

The aim of this study was to show whether the level of lactate in venous blood compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), in patients diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal system (UGI) bleeding in the emergency department, will help to predict the need for transfusion and prognosis.

Materials and Methods

Patients with UGI bleeding who were admitted to the emergency department were included in the study. The parameters age, gender, referral complaints, comorbidities, lactate levels in venous blood, GBS, endoscopy findings, length of hospital stay, transfusion amount, and outcome of patients were recorded in the data collection form.

Results

A total of 139 patients were included in the study. The most common complaints were melena (38.1%) and hematemesis (32.4%). The most frequent endoscopic diagnosis was duodenal ulcer (40.3%). The cutoff value of the venous blood lactate level for the prediction of the need for red blood cell transfusion was 1.58 mmol/L, and the cutoff value for GBS was 9.5. While 124 patients were discharged, 15 patients died. The mean value of venous lactate in survived patients was 2.37 mmol/L and 4.80 in dead patients. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.044). The cutoff value of lactate for the prediction of mortality was 2.32 mmol/L, and the cutoff value for GBS was 13.5.

Conclusions

The venous blood lactate value of a patient who was admitted to the emergency department with UGI bleeding might be helpful in predicting the transfusion needs of the patient and predicting the mortality.

Endoscopic hemostasis followed by preventive transarterial embolization in high-risk patients with bleeding peptic ulcer: 5-year experience

Background

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) due to peptic ulcer disease is one of the leading causes of death in patients with non-variceal bleeding, resulting in up to 10% mortality rate, and the patient group at high risk of rebleeding (Forrest IA, IB, and IIA) often requires additional therapy after endoscopic hemostasis. Preventive transarterial embolization (P-TAE) after endoscopic hemostasis was introduced in our institution in 2014. The aim of the study is an assessment of the intermediate results of P-TAE following primary endoscopic hemostasis in patients with serious comorbid conditions and high risk of rebleeding.

Methods

During the period from 2014 to 2018, a total of 399 patients referred to our institution with a bleeding peptic ulcer, classified as type Forrest IA, IB, or IIA with the Rockall score ≥ 5, after endoscopic hemostasis was prospectively included in two groups—P-TAE group and control group, where endoscopy alone (EA) was performed. The P-TAE patients underwent flow-reducing left gastric artery or gastroduodenal artery embolization according to the ulcer type. The rebleeding rate, complications, frequency of surgical interventions, transfused packed red blood cells (PRBC), amount of fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and mortality rate were analyzed.

Results

From 738 patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer, 399 were at high risk for rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis. From this cohort, 58 patients underwent P-TAE, and 341 were allocated to the EA. A significantly lower rebleeding rate was observed in the P-TAE group, 3.4% vs. 16.2% in the EA group; p = 0.005. The need for surgical intervention reached 10.3% vs. 20.6% in the P-TAE and EA groups accordingly; p = 0.065. Patients that underwent P-TAE required less FFP, 1.3 unit vs. 2.6 units in EA; p = 0.0001. The mortality rate was similar in groups with a tendency to decrease in the P-TAE group, 5.7% vs. 8.5% in EA; p = 0.417.

Conclusion

P-TAE is a feasible and safe procedure, and it may reduce the rebleeding rate and the need for surgical intervention in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer when the rebleeding risk remains high after primary endoscopic hemostasis.

AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

Risk stratification for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (NVUGI) bleeding is crucial for successful prognosis and treatment. Recently, the AIMS65 score has been used to predict mortality risk and rebleeding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in Korea.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 512 patients with NVUGI bleeding who were treated at a university hospital between 2013 and 2016. The AIMS65, GBS, Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score were used to stratify patients based on their bleeding risk. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite clinical outcomes of mortality, rebleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Each scoring system was compared using the receiver-operating curve (ROC).

Results

A total of 17 patients (3.3%) died and rebleeding developed in 65 patients (12.7%). Eighty-six patients (16.8%) required ICU admission. The AIMS65 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.88)) seemed to be superior to the GBS (AUC 0.72, 0.68–0.76), the Rockall score (AUC 0.75, 0.71–0.79), or the pre-endoscopic Rockall score (AUC 0.74, 0.70–0.78) in predicting in-hospital mortality, but there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.07). The AUC value of the AIMS65 was not significantly different from the other scoring systems in prediction of rebleeding, endoscopic intervention, or ICU admission.

Conclusions

The AIMS65 score in NVUGI bleeding patients was comparable to the GBS or Rockall scoring systems when predicting the mortality, rebleeding, or ICU admission. Because AIMS65 is a much easier, readily calculated scoring system compared to the others, we would recommend using the AIMS65 in daily practice.

Comparison of computed tomography findings with clinical risks factors for endoscopic therapy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases

Several risk scoring systems exist for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The clinical Rockall score (clinical RS) and the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are major risk scores that consider only clinical data. Computed tomography (CT) findings are equivocal in non-variceal UGIB. We compared CT findings with clinical data to predict mortality, rebleeding and need for endoscopic therapy in non-variceal UGIB patients. This retrospective, single-center study included 386 patients admitted to our emergency department with diagnosis of non-variceal UGIB by urgent endoscopy between January 2009 and March 2015. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate CT findings and risk factors derived from clinical data. CT findings could not significantly predict mortality and rebleeding in non-variceal UGIB patients. However, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in CT findings better predicted the need for endoscopic therapy than clinical data. The adjusted odds ratios were 10.10 (95% CI 5.01-20.40) for clinical RS and 10.70 (95% CI 5.08-22.70) for the GBS. UGI hemorrhage in CT findings could predict the need for endoscopic therapy in non-variceal UGIB patients in our emergency department. CT findings as well as risk score systems may be useful for predicting the need for endoscopic therapy.

Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall Scores for prediction of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding outcomes in Chinese patients

The Glasgow-Blatchford scores (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) are commonly used for stratifying patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Although predictive value of these scoring methods has been extensively validated, their clinical effectiveness remains unclear. The following study evaluated the GBS and RS scoring system with reference to bleeding, needs for further surgery, endoscopic intervention and death, in order to verify their effectiveness and accuracy in clinical application.Patients who presented with NVUGIH, or who were consequently diagnosed with the disease (by endoscopy examination) between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012 were enrolled in the study. GBS and RS scores were compared to predict bleeding, the needs for further surgery, endoscopic intervention, death by ROC curves and AUC value.Among 2977 patients, the pre-endoscopic RS and complete RS score (CRS) were superior to the GBS score (AUC: 0.842 vs 0.804 vs 0.622, respectively) for predicting the mortality risk in patients. The pre-endoscopic RS score predicting re-bleeding was significantly higher than the CRS and the GBS score (AUC: 0.658 vs 0.548 vs 0.528, respectively). In addition, the 3 scoring systems revealed to be poor predictors of surgical operation effectiveness (AUC: 0.589 vs 0.547 vs 0.504, respectively).Our data demonstrated that the GBS and RS scoring systems could be used to predict outcomes in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Development, Validation, and Comparative Assessment of an International Scoring System to Determine Risk of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and pre-endoscopy Rockall score (pRS) are used in determining prognoses of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but neither predicts outcomes of patients with a high level of accuracy. A scoring system is needed to identify patients at risk of adverse outcomes and patients at low risk of harm.

METHODS

We pooled data from 5 data sets in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia on 12,711 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The GBS and pRS were calculated for each patient. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling of data from 10,639 cases to develop the new scoring system Canada - United Kingdom - Adelaide (CANUKA). We performed area under the receiver operating characteristic analyses to test the ability of CANUKA to identify patients who died or had rebleeding within 30 days, surgical or radiologic intervention to control bleeding, need for therapeutic endoscopy, and transfusion-a poor outcome was defined as 1 or more of these outcomes. Patients at low risk of a poor outcome (safe for management as an outpatient) were identified based on lack of transfusion, rebleeding, therapeutic endoscopy, interventional radiology or surgery, or death. We validated in 2072 patients from a separate cohort compiled from 2 datasets.

RESULTS

In the development data set there was no difference between GBS and pRS in identifying patients who died without 30 days of bleeding (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.62-0.72 for GBS; AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.74 for pRS; P = .21). The GBS was superior to the pRS in identifying patients with rebleeding, hemostatic interventions, and transfusions. In the validation data set, CANUKA had higher accuracy than the GBS in identifying patients who died within 30 days of bleeding (AUROC, 0.77 vs 0.74; P = .047), but there was no significant difference in the accuracy of these scoring systems in identifying patients who required hemostatic intervention. The GBS more accurately identified patients who required therapeutic endoscopy (AUROC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81 for GBS; AUROC, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.79 for CANUKA; P = .47). For patients classified as low-risk patients by CANUKA (score ≤1), 96.3% were safely discharged, whereas 16 patients with a GBS ≤1 had an adverse outcome (a 95.3% probability of safe discharge).

CONCLUSIONS

In an international validation analysis of the GBS and pRS for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we found the GBS to more accurately identify those who later required hemostatic interventions and transfusions; the scoring systems identified 30-day mortality or rebleeding with equal levels of accuracy. We developed a scoring system (CANUKA) that had similar performance to the GBS in predicting patient outcomes and it more accurately identifies patients at low risk for adverse outcomes.

Risk stratification in upper and upper and lower GI bleeding: Which scores should we use?

Risk assessment is widely used in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) however no score accurately predicts all important clinical outcomes. This review discusses the performance of the Rockall score, pre-endsocopy Rockall score, Glasgow-Blatchford score, AIMS-65 and newer scores such as Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva and CANUKA scores. The quality of external validation varies considerably for each score. There is a relative lack of risk scores available for use in lower GI bleeding (LGIB) but recent developments have focussed on the identification of low risk patients. The BLEED, NOBLADS, Strate and Sengupta scores have been developed to predict severe bleeding or death, each with varying performance. The Oakland score has been developed to identify patients at low risk of adverse outcomes who may be suitable for outpatient management. The comparative performance of the LGIB scores and Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS-65 in the prediction of outcomes in LGIB is also discussed.

Comparison of various prognostic scores in variceal and non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Various prognostic scores like Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (GBS), modified Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (mGBS), full Rockall score (FRS) including endoscopic findings, clinical Rockall score (CRS), and albumin, international normalized ratio (INR), mental status, systolic blood pressure, age >65 (AIMS65) are used for risk stratification in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The utility of these scores in variceal UGIB (VUGIB) is not well defined. In this prospective study, we aimed to assess the performance of these scores in patients with non-variceal (NVUGIB) and VUGIB.

METHODS

We included 1011 patients (during March 2017 and August 2018) including 439 with NVUGIB and 572 VUGIB. Performance of GBS, mGBS, FRS, CRS, and AIMS65 for various outcome measures was analyzed using the area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

The accuracy of prognostic scores in predicting the composite outcome including the need of hospital-based intervention and 42-day mortality was higher in NVUGIB as compared with VUGIB, AUROC: CRS: 0.641 vs. 0.537; FRS: 0.669 vs. 0.625; GBS: 0.719 vs. 0.587; mGBS: 0.711 vs. 0.594; AIMS65: 0.567 vs. 0.548. GBS and mGBS at a cut-off score of 1 had the highest negative predictive value, 91.7% and 91.3%, respectively, for predicting composite outcome in NVUGIB. Similarly, these scores had better accuracy for predicting 42-day rebleeding in NVUGIB as compared to VUGIB, AUROC: CRS: 0.680 vs. 0.537; FRS: 0.698 vs. 0.565; GBS: 0.661 vs. 0.543; mGBS: 0.627 vs. 0.540; AIMS65: 0.695 vs. 0.606.

CONCLUSION

The prognostic scores such as CRS, FRS, GBS, mGBS, and AIMS65 predict the need for hospital-based management, rebleeding, and mortality better among patients with NVUGIB than VUGIB.

Comparative outcomes in patients with ulcer- vs non-ulcer-related acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the United Kingdom: a nationwide cohort of 4474 patients

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) have historically focused on ulcer-related causes. Little is known regarding non-ulcer bleeding, the most common cause of NVUGIB.

AIM

To compare outcomes between ulcer- and non-ulcer-related NVUGIB and explore whether these could be explained by differences in baseline characteristics, bleeding severity or processes of care.

METHODS

Analysis of 4474 patients with NVUGIB from 212 United Kingdom hospitals as part of a nationwide audit. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for baseline characteristics, bleeding severity and processes of care.

RESULTS

1682 patients had ulcer-related and 2792 patients had non-ulcer-related bleeding. Those with ulcer-related bleeding were older (median age 73 vs 69, P < 0.001), less likely to have been taking a PPI (18% vs 32%, P < 0.001), more likely to have been taking aspirin (40% vs 27%, P < 0.001) and present with shock (43% vs 32%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, those with ulcer-related bleeding were more likely to receive blood transfusion (66% vs 39%, P < 0.001), PPI infusion (27% vs 5%, P < 0.001) and endoscopic therapy (37% vs 8%, P < 0.001). Overall, ulcer-related bleeding had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.21-1.96, P < 0.0001), rebleeding (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.73-2.51, P < 0.0001) and need for surgical/radiologic intervention (OR: 2.64; 95% CI: 1.85-3.77, P < 0.0001). The associations disappeared after adjustment for bleeding severity, whereas adjustment for patient characteristics or process of care factors had no impact.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ulcer-related NVUGIB bleeding have worse outcomes than those with non-ulcer-related NVUGIB bleeding, which is due to more severe bleeding.

Early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about whether early enteral nutrition administration is related to worse prognosis than delayed enteral nutrition for patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the effect of early enteral nutrition on the patient with gastrointestinal bleeding through the meta-analysis.

METHODS

Such electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and CBM were searched from 1985 to March 2018. Randomized controlled trials that compared early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were considered eligible. Data extraction and the methodological quality assessment of the included trials were carried out according to the Cochrane Handbook. We calculated the pooled risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and the corresponding 95% confidential interval using RevMan5.3.

RESULT

A total of 5 trials involving 313 patients were included. Compared with delayed enteral nutrition, there was a tendency for a decreased rebleeding rate in the early enteral nutrition group, but the trend was not statistically significant (risk ratio = 0.75, 95% confidential interval: 0.34-1.64, I = 0). As for mortality within 30 days, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (risk ratio = 0.74, 95% confidential interval: 0.23-2.39, I = 0). In addition, the pooled analysis showed that early enteral nutrition was related to reduced hospitalized days (weighted mean difference = -1.69, 95% confidential interval: -2.15 to -1.23; I = 27%) CONCLUSION:: For patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, early enteral nutrition within 24 hours does not result in the significantly higher risk of rebleeding and mortality compared with delayed enteral nutrition, but decrease hospitalized days. Patients who are at low risk for rebleeding can be fed early and discharged early. However, larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these findings, and when the gastrointestinal bleeding patient start enteral nutrition is worth studying.

Prognostic factors in patients with active non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the main causes of hospitalisation. The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic factors in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical outcomes, demographic and laboratory variables of the subjects were collected from the HIS software and national code with the SQL format from three hospitals in Qazvin. The data were linked to the database software designed by the author. Clinical and upper endoscopic findings of patients' records were collected through a questionnaire form in the designed software database.

RESULTS

In this study, 29.2% of patients with favourable outcome and 64.2% of patients with unfavourable clinical outcomes had a history of anticoagulant drug use before hospitalisation (p < 0.001). The prevalence of chronic cardiovascular disease, chronic liver disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes and dialysis was higher in subjects with poor clinical outcomes than those with a favourable clinical outcome. 53.1% of subjects with favourable clinical outcome and 90.5% of subjects with undesirable clinical outcomes received packed red blood cell transfusion (p < 0.001). 16.1% of subjects with desirable clinical outcome and 86.3% of subjects with undesirable clinical outcomes received endoscopic haemostatic treatment which was statistically significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Undesirable clinical outcome in patients with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding has a significant statistical association with longer hospitalisation, chronic underlying disease, anticoagulant administration, packed red blood cell infusion, higher Forrest stage, low systolic blood pressure, higher age, low haemoglobin, low platelet count, high INR and high BUN at the onset of diagnosis.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Compared with ulcer bleeding (UB) in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), non-ulcer bleeding (NUB) is often considered to have a low risk of poor outcomes and is treated less intensively without any risk stratification. We conducted this study to assess the predictability of scoring systems for NUB and compare the outcomes of NUB and UB.

METHODS

A total of 1831 UGIB patients were registered in the database during the period from February 2011 to December 2013. Among them, 1424 patients with NVUGIB were divided into two groups: Group UB (1101 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding) and Group NUB (323 patients with non-peptic ulcer-related bleeding).

RESULTS

The most common cause of bleeding in Group NUB was Mallory-Weiss tears (51.1%), followed by Dieulafoy lesions (18.9%). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that the pre-Rockall score [area under the ROC (AUROC) = 0.798; 95% CI 0.707-0.890] and full Rockall score (AUROC = 0.794; 95% CI 0.693-0.895) were relatively good at predicting overall mortality in NUB. Glasgow-Blatchford score (AUROC = 0.783; 95% CI 0.730-0.836) was the most closely correlated with the need for clinical intervention in NUB. Those who had Glasgow-Blatchford score of 0 did not require any interventions, including blood transfusions. There were no statistical differences in overall mortality (p = 0.387), bleeding-related mortality (p = 0.447), or the incidence of re-bleeding (p = 0.117) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Scoring systems are useful to predict mortality and the need for clinical intervention in patients with NUB.

Asia-Pacific working group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an update 2018

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important emergency condition, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. As endoscopic therapy is the 'gold standard' of management, treatment of these patients can be considered in three stages: pre-endoscopic treatment, endoscopic haemostasis and post-endoscopic management. Since publication of the Asia-Pacific consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) 7 years ago, there have been significant advancements in the clinical management of patients in all three stages. These include pre-endoscopy risk stratification scores, blood and platelet transfusion, use of proton pump inhibitors; during endoscopy new haemostasis techniques (haemostatic powder spray and over-the-scope clips); and post-endoscopy management by second-look endoscopy and medication strategies. Emerging techniques, including capsule endoscopy and Doppler endoscopic probe in assessing adequacy of endoscopic therapy, and the pre-emptive use of angiographic embolisation, are attracting new attention. An emerging problem is the increasing use of dual antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases. Guidelines on the discontinuation and then resumption of these agents in patients presenting with NVUGIB are very much needed. The Asia-Pacific Working Group examined recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines in this updated consensus statement.

Predictive factors of therapeutic intervention in on-call endoscopy for suspected gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Performing an endoscopy out of hours confer significant burdens on limited health-care resources. However, not all on-call endoscopies lead to therapeutic interventions. The purpose of the present study was to analyze predictive factors for performing therapeutic intervention in patients with suspected gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

We reviewed and analyzed electronic medical records regarding on-call endoscopy that were prospectively collected for quality control. The subjects were patients with suspected gastrointestinal bleeding who underwent on-call endoscopies at night, on weekends and on holidays between April 2013 and January 2017 in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. To determine predictive factors for performing therapeutic intervention, the following variables were analyzed: symptoms, patient status, coexisting disease, laboratory findings and medications. To clarify the association between the likelihood of therapeutic intervention in on-call endoscopy and AIMS65 score, the included variables were divided by cutoffs.

RESULTS

A total of 270 patients (male: 72.6%, mean age: 62.6 years) with suspected gastrointestinal bleeding had on-call endoscopies and 153 (56.7%) patients had therapeutic intervention. Gastroscopy, colonoscopy and both endoscopic techniques were performed in 215, 42 and 13 patients, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, hematemesis (p < .001, odds ratio [OR], 2.484) and prolonged prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (PT-INR) (p = .033; OR, 1.958) were correlated with performing therapeutic intervention in on-call endoscopy. AIMS65 score with a cutoff of 2 was associated with the likelihood of intervention (p = .043).

CONCLUSIONS

Hematemesis and prolonged PT-INR were predictive factors of therapeutic intervention when on-call endoscopy was performed in patients with suspected gastrointestinal bleeding.

Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Objective:

This study aimed to compare the performances of the Glasgow–Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PRS), complete Rockall score (CRS), and Cedars–Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index (CSMCPI) in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).

Methods:

Patients who were admitted to the emergency department because of UGIB and underwent endoscopy within the first 24 hour were included in this study. The GBS, PRS, CRS, and CSMCPI were propectively calculated. The performances of these scores were assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results:

A total of 153 patients were included in this study. For the prediction of high-risk patients, area under the curve (AUC) was obtained for GBS (0.912), PRS (0.968), CRS (0.991), and CSMCPI (0.918). For the prediction of rebleeding, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.656), PRS (0.625), CRS (0.701), and CSMCPI (0.612). For the prediction of 30-day mortality, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.658), PRS (0.757), CRS (0.823), and CSMCPI (0.745).

Conclusion:

These results suggest that effectiveness of CRS is higher than that of other scores in predicting high-risk patients, rebleeding and 30-day mortality in patients with UGIB.

Advances in the Therapy of Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Peptic ulcer bleeding remains an important medical emergency. Important recent advances are reviewed. These include further support for a more restrictive transfusion strategy aiming for a target haemoglobin of 70-90 g/L. The Glasgow-Blatchford score remains the most useful assessment score for identifying the lowest risk patients suitable for outpatient management and predicting the need for intervention. Newer scores such as the AIMS65 and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestive score (PNED) may be more accurate in predicting mortality. Pre-endoscopy erythromycin improves outcomes and is underused. A new disposable Doppler probe appears to provide more accurate determination of both rebleeding risk and the success of endoscopic therapy than purely visual guidance. Over-the-scope clips and haemostatic powders appear to have some role as endoscopic salvage therapies. Non- H. pylori, non-aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ulcers contribute to an increasing percentage of bleeding peptic ulcers and are associated with a high rebleeding rate. The optimal management of these ulcers remains to be determined.

Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in predicting the risk of in-hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Nanjing, China

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the performance of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) in predicting the death risk among emergency-hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in regional China.

METHODS

A retrospective study was implemented between January 2014 and December 2015. Eligible participants were those who were hospitalized with UGIB. The outcome variable was in-hospital death, while explanatory variables were AIMS65, GBS and RS scores. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated to assess the association of AIMS65, GBS and RS with death risk using multivariate logistic regression models. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of three scoring systems were computed to compare their predictive power.

RESULTS

Among 799 UGIB participants, 674 were non-variceal bleeding (NVUGIB) and 125 variceal bleeding (VUGIB) patients. AIMS65 (OR = 14.72, 95% CI = 6.48, 33.43) and RS (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.20, 2.13) were positively associated with the risk of in-hospital death. Moreover, AIMS65 (AUC = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84, 0.98) performed the best in predicting in-hospital death, followed by RS (AUC = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.86) and GBS (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59, 0.83) among overall UGIB participants. AIMS65 was also the best indicator to predict in-hospital death among either NVUGIB participants (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80, 0.98) or VUGIB participants (AUC = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89, 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

AIMS65, GBS and RS scoring approaches were all acceptable for predicting in-hospital death among UGIB patients irrespective of the subtype of UGIB in China. The AIMS65 might be the most powerful predictor.

Validity of the Pre-endoscopic Scoring Systems for the Prediction of the Failure of Endoscopic Hemostasis in Bleeding Gastroduodenal Peptic Ulcers

Objective Although several pre-endoscopic scoring systems have been used to predict the mortality or the need for intervention for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, their usefulness to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers has not yet been fully investigated. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), the clinical Rockall score (CRS), and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 226 consecutive emergency endoscopic cases with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers between April 2010 and September 2016. The study outcome was the failure of first endoscopic hemostasis. The GBS, CRS, and AIMS65 scores were assessed for their ability to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis using a receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results Eight cases (3.5%) failed to achieve first endoscopic hemostasis. Surgery was required in six cases, and interventional radiology was required in two cases. The GBS was superior to both the CRS and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis [area under the curve, 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.90), 0.65 (0.56-0.74) and 0.75 (0.56-0.95), respectively]. No failure of endoscopic hemostasis was noted in cases in which the patient scored less than GBS 10 and CRS 2. Conclusion The GBS was the most useful scoring system for the prediction of failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. The GBS was also useful in identifying the patients who did not require surgery or interventional radiology.

Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes

Introduction

Although different scores have been suggested to predict outcomes in the setting of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), few comparative studies between simplified versions of older scores and recent scores have been published. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of pre- (PreRS) and postendoscopic Rockall scores (PostRS), the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and its simplified version (sGBS), as well as the AIMS65 score in predicting different clinical outcomes.

Methods

In this retrospective study, PreRS, PostRS, GBS, sGBS, and AIMS65 score were calculated, and then, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to evaluate the performance of each score to predict blood transfusion, endoscopic therapy, surgery, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, as well as 30-day rebleeding or mortality.

Results

PreRS, PostRS, GBS, and sGBS were calculated for all the 433 included patients, but AIMS65 calculation was only possible for 315 patients. Only the PreRS and PostRS were able to fairly predict 30-day mortality. The GBS and sGBS were good in predicting blood transfusion and reasonable in predicting surgery. None of the studied scores were good in predicting the need for endoscopic therapy, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, and 30-day rebleeding.

Conclusions

Owing to the identified limitations, none of the 5 studied scores could be singly used to predict all the clinically relevant outcomes in the setting of UGIB. The sGBS was as precise as the GBS in predicting blood transfusion and surgery. The PreRS and PostRS were the only scores that could predict 30-day mortality. An algorithm using the PreRS and the sGBS as an initial approach to patients with UGIB is presented and suggested.

Outcomes and Role of Urgent Endoscopy in High-Risk Patients With Acute Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated clinical outcomes in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and determined if urgent endoscopy is effective.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a Glasgow-Blatchford score greater than 7 who underwent endoscopy for acute nonvariceal UGIB at the emergency department from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, were included. Urgent (<6 h) and elective (6-48 h) endoscopies were defined according to the time to endoscopy after the initial presentation. The primary outcomes were mortality and rebleeding within 28 days of admission.

RESULTS

Among 961 patients, 571 patients underwent urgent endoscopy. The 28-day mortality rate was 2.5%, and the rebleeding rate was 10.4%. There were significant differences in mortality rate (1.6% vs 3.8%), the number of transfused packed red blood cells (2.6 ± 2.5 vs 2.3 ± 2.1 packs), need for intervention (69.5% vs 53.5%), and embolization (2.8% vs 0.5%), but no differences in rebleeding, intensive care unit admission, vasopressor use, and length of stay between the urgent and elective endoscopy groups. Mortality was associated with malignancy (odds ratio [OR], 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-9.62), cirrhosis (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.85-11.76), urgent endoscopy (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.95), failed primary endoscopic treatment (OR, 15.03; 95% CI, 4.63-48.82), and rebleeding (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.03-7.45). Rebleeding was associated with Forrest I ulcers (OR, 7.67; 95% CI, 2.71-21.69), Forrest II ulcers (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60), and coagulopathy (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent endoscopy was an independent predictor of lower mortality rate but was not associated with rebleeding in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.

The Role of History of Gastro-Duodenal Ulcer in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Some scoring systems have been introduced to predict the need for performing urgent endoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, in an emergency situation, this intervention is insufficient and cannot easily provide the required treatment.

AIM

To identify new risk factors that can predict the need for endoscopic intervention (EI) in UGIB patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. Patients with UGIB admitted from April 2011 to August 2014 were included. The proportion of cases requiring EI and clinical factors (age, gender, antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy, history of gastro-duodenal ulcer (GDU), systolic blood pressure, heart rate, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume, blood urea nitrogen-creatinine ratio (BUN/Cr ratio), prothrombin time-international normalized ratio, and Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) were analyzed using logistic regression models.

RESULT

Of 378 patients who were included in this study, 180 were found to be with GDU. The proportion of cases requiring EI was significantly higher in those with GDU than in other causes except variceal bleeding (53.5 vs. 37.0%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that a history of GDU was an independent risk factor (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.06-3.00) in addition to BUN/Cr ratio (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and GBS (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.33).

CONCLUSION

A history of GDU was an independent risk factor for predicting the need for EI in UGIB in addition to BUN/Cr ratio and GBS.

Rockall Score Larger Than 7 as a Reliable Criterion for the Selection of Indications for Preventive Transarterial Embolization in a Subgroup of High-Risk Elderly Patients After Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background

Transarterial embolization (TAE) is an alternative procedure to repeat endoscopy or surgical intervention in the case of re-bleeding after primary endoscopic treatment. The aim of the study was to assess the Rockall score as a criterion for TAE in the case of re-bleeding after endoscopic treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).

Methods

Out of the 673 patients who underwent emergent endoscopic hemostasis due to NVUGIB, 111 had a high risk of re-bleeding having a Forrest I-IIb ulcer and the Rockall score ≥ 5. From 111 patients, 37 accepted preventive TAE (PE+ group). The control group consisted of 74 patients who underwent standard treatment (PE- group).

Results

There were no differences in the demographic status between both groups, nor in the main clinical data on admission. The performance of TAE resulted in a significantly lower re-bleeding rate (1 (4.8%) vs. 11 (33%), P = 0.018). No patient who underwent TAE with the Rockall score ≥ 7 required surgery, resulting in only one re-bleeding episode (P = 0.004). Mortality reached 5% and 11% in the PE+ and PE- groups accordingly.

Conclusion

The Rockall score ≥ 7 could be a reliable predictor of re-bleeding after primary endoscopic hemostasis as one criterion for the selection of indications for preventive TAE.

Validation of a Modified Glasgow-Blatchford Score for Risk Stratification of Patients with Suspected Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in an Accident and Emergency Department in Hong Kong

Objectives

To validate the use of a modified Glasgow-Blatchford Score (mGBS) for risk stratification of patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in an accident and emergency department in Hong Kong.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who attended the emergency department of the study centre from January 2014 to June 2014 who were subsequently admitted to surgical wards with suspected UGIB. High risk patients were considered to be those who required in-patient clinical interventions (blood transfusion, therapeutic endoscopy, angiographic embolisation, or surgery). The mGBS was calculated for each patient. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the score were calculated.

Results

A total of 372 patients were included in the study. With an mGBS of 0 (low risk) for detecting the primary outcome, the sensitivity was 99.2% (95% CI, 95.6100%), and the specificity was 25.91 (95% CI 20.6-31.8%). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.031 (95% CI 0.004-0.2). The AUC was 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93).

Conclusion

The modified Glasgow-Blatchford Score is a clinically useful tool for emergency physician to identify UGIB patients at low-risk of requiring in-hospital clinical interventions. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2016;23:3-11)

Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use?

AIM

To compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS) and Baylor bleeding score (BBS) in predicting clinical outcomes and need for interventions in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2013, 1012 consecutive patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) were prospectively followed. The pre-endoscopic RS, BBS and GBS, as well as the post-endoscopic diagnostic scores (RS and BBS) were calculated for all patients according to their urgent upper endoscopy findings. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics (AUROC) curves were calculated for the prediction of lethal outcome, rebleeding, needs for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention, and the optimal cutoff values were evaluated.

RESULTS

PUB accounted for 41.9% of all upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, 5.2% patients died and 5.4% patients underwent surgery. By comparing the AUROC curves of the aforementioned pre-endoscopic scores, the RS best predicted lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.67 vs 0.63, respectively), but the GBS best predicted need for hospital-based intervention or 30-d mortality (AUROC 0.84 vs 0.57 vs 0.64), rebleeding (AUROC 0.75 vs 0.61 vs 0.53), need for blood transfusion (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.63 vs 0.58) and surgical intervention (0.82 vs 0.63 vs 0.52) The post-endoscopic RS was also better than the post-endoscopic BBS in predicting lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.69, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The RS is the best predictor of mortality and the GBS is the best predictor of rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention in patients with PUB. There is no one 'perfect score' and we suggest that these two tests be used concomitantly.