Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation

Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Model Compared With Clinical Risk Scores for Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines recommend use of risk stratification scores for patients presenting with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) to identify very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from emergency departments. Machine learning models may outperform existing scores and can be integrated within the electronic health record (EHR) to provide real-time risk assessment without manual data entry. We present the first EHR-based machine learning model for GIB.

METHODS

The training cohort comprised 2546 patients and internal validation of 850 patients presenting with overt GIB (ie, hematemesis, melena, and hematochezia) to emergency departments of 2 hospitals from 2014 to 2019. External validation was performed on 926 patients presenting to a different hospital with the same EHR from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of red blood cell transfusion, hemostatic intervention (ie, endoscopic, interventional radiologic, or surgical), and 30-day all-cause mortality. We used structured data fields in the EHR, available within 4 hours of presentation, and compared the performance of machine learning models with current guideline-recommended risk scores, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Oakland Score. Primary analysis was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Secondary analysis was specificity at 99% sensitivity to assess the proportion of patients correctly identified as very low risk.

RESULTS

The machine learning model outperformed the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001) and Oakland Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001). At the very-low-risk threshold of 99% sensitivity, the machine learning model identified more very-low-risk patients: 37.9% vs 18.5% for Glasgow-Blatchford Score and 11.7% for Oakland Score (P < .001 for both comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

An EHR-based machine learning model performs better than currently recommended clinical risk scores and identifies more very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from the emergency department.

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

METHODS

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

Mortality Risk Scoring System in Patients after Bleeding from Cancers in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Background/Aims

: Risk scoring systems for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding have not been well validated for tumor bleeding. This study aimed to identify risk factors for mortality in patients with UGI cancer bleeding and to develop a predictive model.

Methods

: Consecutive patients with UGI cancers who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy for suspected bleeding were retrospectively included. Patient characteristics, endoscopic findings and 30-day mortality were assessed. A predictive model was made based on risk factors for mortality using logistic regression, and the area under the curve (AUC) of this model was calculated. It was then compared with other risk scoring systems.

Results

: In a total of 264 patients, 193 had tumor bleeding. Among them, 108 (56.0%), 76 (39.4%), and nine (4.7%) patients received conservative treatment, endoscopic therapy, and non-endoscopic hemostasis, respectively. Rebleeding occurred in 23 (21.3%), 26 (34.2%), and one (11.1%) patient(s), respectively. Our new model is composed of altered mental status, renal failure, rebleeding, age older than 65 years, and low serum albumin (all p<0.05). This model predicted 30-day mortality with an AUC of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.86), which was significantly higher than AUCs of the Glasgow-Blatchford score, Rockall, and AIMS65 score (AUC=0.61, 0.64, and 0.69, respectively, all p<0.05).

Conclusions

: Our new scoring system provides a better prediction of 30-day mortality than existing scoring systems in patients with UGI cancer bleeding. This new scoring system can be used to predict and prepare these patients who are known to have high mortality.

A systematic review of failed endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a surgical emergency, usually managed via endoscopy. Approximately 2% of patients will have another significant bleed after therapeutic endoscopy and may require either transarterial embolization (TAE) or surgery. In 2011, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommended that TAE should be the preferred option offered in this setting.

METHODS

This study aimed to conduct an appraisal of guidelines on NVUGIB using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A specific review of their recommendations on the management of adult patients with failed endoscopic hemostasis that required TAE or surgery was conducted.

RESULTS

The quality of the guidelines was moderate; most could be recommended with changes. However, their recommendations regarding TAE vs surgery were widely heterogeneous. A closer review of the underpinning evidence showed that most studies were retrospective, with a small sample size and missing data.

CONCLUSION

Because of the heterogeneity in evidence, the decision regarding TAE vs surgery requires further research. Deciding between these modalities is primarily based on TAE availability and patient comorbidities. However, surgery should not be dismissed as a key option after failed endoscopic hemostasis.

Achieving Value by Risk Stratification With Machine Learning Model or Clinical Risk Score in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost Minimization Analysis

INTRODUCTION

We estimate the economic impact of applying risk assessment tools to identify very low-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding who can be safely discharged from the emergency department using a cost minimization analysis.

METHODS

We compare triage strategies (Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0/0-1 or validated machine learning model) with usual care using a Markov chain model from a US health care payer perspective.

RESULTS

Over 5 years, the Glasgow-Blatchford score triage strategy produced national cumulative savings over usual care of more than $2.7 billion and the machine learning strategy of more than $3.4 billion.

DISCUSSION

Implementing risk assessment models for upper gastrointestinal bleeding reduces costs, thereby increasing value.

Development and validation of machine learning models to predict the need for haemostatic therapy in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. This presentation however is not universally high risk as only 20-30% of bleeds require urgent haemostatic therapy. Nevertheless, the current standard of care is for all patients admitted to an inpatient bed to undergo endoscopy within 24 h for risk stratification which is invasive, costly and difficult to achieve in routine clinical practice.

Objectives

To develop novel non-endoscopic machine learning models for AUGIB to predict the need for haemostatic therapy by endoscopic, radiological or surgical intervention.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Method

We analysed data from patients admitted with AUGIB to hospitals from 2015 to 2020 (n = 970). Machine learning models were internally validated to predict the need for haemostatic therapy. The performance of the models was compared to the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) using the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves.

Results

The random forest classifier [AUROC 0.84 (0.80-0.87)] had the best performance and was superior to the GBS [AUROC 0.75 (0.72-0.78), p < 0.001] in predicting the need for haemostatic therapy in patients with AUGIB. A GBS cut-off of ⩾12 was associated with an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.74, 0.49, 0.81, 0.41 and 0.85, respectively. The Random Forrest model performed better with an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 0.82, 0.54, 0.90, 0.60 and 0.88, respectively.

Conclusion

We developed and validated a machine learning algorithm with high accuracy and specificity in predicting the need for haemostatic therapy in AUGIB. This could be used to risk stratify high-risk patients to urgent endoscopy.

Scoring systems for risk stratification in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Several scoring systems have been developed for both upper and lower GI bleeding to predict the bleeding severity and discriminate between low-risk patients, who may be suitable for outpatient management, and those who would likely need hospital-based interventions and are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Risk scores created to identify low-risk patients (namely the Glasgow Blatchford Score and the Oakland score) showed very good discriminative performances and their implementation has proven to be effective in reducing hospital admissions and healthcare burden. Conversely, the performances of risk scores in identifying specific adverse events to define high-risk patients are less accurate, and whether their integration into routine clinical practice has a tangible impact on patient management remains unproven. This review describes the existing risk score systems for GI bleeding, emphasizes key research findings, elucidates the circumstances in which their utilization can be beneficial, examines their constraints when considering routine clinical application, and discuss future development.

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.

AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score and modified Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score in predicting outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: An accuracy and calibration study

BACKGROUND

Albumin, international normalized ratio (INR), mental status, systolic blood pressure, age >65 years (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (GBS) and modified GBS (mGBS) are three pre-endoscopy scoring systems used in the risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The utility of such scoring systems in a population is estimated by their accuracy and calibration in the population. We aimed at validating and comparing the accuracy of the three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes including in-hospital mortality, need for blood transfusion, endoscopic treatment and rebleeding risk.

METHOD

We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study on patients with UGIB at a tertiary care center in India over 12 months. Clinical and laboratory data was collected from all patients admitted with UGIB. All patients were risk stratified using AIMS65, GBS and mGBS. The clinical outcome examined were: in-hospital mortality, requirement of blood transfusion, need for endoscopic treatment and rebleeding during hospital stay. The area under receiver-operating curve (AUROC) was calculated to assess the performance and calibration curves (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit curve) were plotted to examine how accurately the model describes the data of all three scoring systems.

RESULTS

Total 260 patients were included in the study, of which 236 (90.8%) were males. As many as 144 (55.4%) patients required blood transfusion and 64 (30.8%) required endoscopic treatment. While the incidence of rebleeding was 7.7%, in hospital mortality was 15.4%. Of 208 who underwent endoscopy, the most common causes identified were varices (49%) and gastritis (18.2%), followed by ulcer (11%), Mallory-Weiss tear (8.1%), portal hypertensive gastropathy (6.7%), malignancy (4.8%) and esophageal candidiasis (1.9%). The median AIMS65 score was 1, GBS 7 and mGBS 6. The area under curve (AUROC) for AIMS65, GBS and mGBS was (0.77, 0.73,0.70), (0.75, 0.82,0.83), (0.56, 0.58,0.83), (0.81, 0.94,0.53) for in-hospital mortality, blood transfusion requirement, endoscopic treatment and rebleeding prediction, respectively.

CONCLUSION

GBS and mGBS are superior to AIMS65 in predicting the requirement of blood transfusion and rebleeding risk, whereas in-hospital mortality was better predicted by AIMS 65. Both scores performed poorly in predicting the need of endoscopic treatment. An AIMS65 of 0,1 and a GBS of ≤ 1 are not associated with significant adverse events. A poor calibration of the scores in our population points to the lack of generalizability of these scoring systems.

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.

A Review of Risk Scores within Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common medical emergency. Thorough initial assessment and appropriate resuscitation are essential to stabilise the patient. Risk scores provide an important tool to discriminate between lower- and higher-risk patients. Very low-risk patients can be safely discharged for out-patient management, while higher-risk patients can receive appropriate in-patient care. The Glasgow Blatchford Score, with a score of 0-1, performs best in the identification of very low-risk patients who will not require hospital based intervention or die, and is recommended by most guidelines to facilitate safe out-patient management. The performance of risk scores in the identification of specific adverse events to define high-risk patients is less accurate, with no individual score performing consistently well. Ongoing developments in the use of machine learning models and artificial intelligence in predicting poor outcomes in UGIB appear promising and will likely form the basis of dynamic risk assessment in the future.

External validation of Glasgow-Blatchford, modified Glasgow-Blatchford and CANUKA scores to identify low-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding in emergency departments: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a medical emergency with an approximate mortality of 10%, which results in a high hospitalisation rate. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) is recommended to identify low-risk patients who can be discharged from the emergency department (ED). A modified GBS (mGBS) and CANUKA score have recently been proposed but have not been well studied. The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of GBS, mGBS or CANUKA score could identify patients at low risk of death or need for intervention.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective study was performed including patients with suspected UGIB visiting the ED of Saint-Antoine hospital (Paris, France) from January 2016 to December 2018. Demographic and medical data needed to calculate GBS and CANUKA were collected, as well as outcomes data. Need for intervention was defined as the need for blood transfusion, endoscopic haemostasis or rebleeding within 7 days. In-hospital mortality was also collected. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were measured for the score thresholds of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 386 patients were included. Median age was 60 years (38-78), 65.3% (n=252) were male and 60% (n=233) were hospitalised. A GBS≤1, mGBS=0 and CANUKA≤2 categorised 24.9%, 18.2% and 18.9% of patients as low risk, respectively. There was a need for intervention in 2.2%, 4.6% and 0% of those patients categorised as low risk by GBS, mGBS and CANUKA, respectively. No deaths occurred in the patients identified as low risk, regardless of the score used. All scores had a high sensitivity and negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with UGIB, the use of a GBS≤1 or CANUKA score ≤2 appears to be safe for identifying patients at low risk of death or need for intervention.

Comparison of Lactate Clearance with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Predicting Outcomes in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Early risk stratification is mandatory in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) to guide optimal treatment. Numerous risk scores were introduced, but lack of practicability led to limited use in daily clinical practice. Lactate clearance is an established risk assessment tool in a variety of diseases, such as trauma and sepsis. Therefore, this study compares the predictive ability of pre-endoscopic lactate clearance and established risk scores in patients with AUGIB at the University Hospital of Cologne. Active bleeding was detected in 27 (25.2%) patients, and hemostatic intervention was performed in 35 (32.7%). In total, 16 patients (15%) experienced rebleeding and 12 (11.2%) died. Initially, lactate levels were elevated in 64 cases (59.8%), and the median lactate clearance was 18.7% (2.7-48.2%). Regarding the need for endoscopic intervention, the predictive ability of Glasgow Blatchford Score, pre-endoscopic Rockall score, initial lactate and lactate clearance did not differ significantly, and their area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.658 (0.560-0.747), 0.572 (0.473-0.667), 0.572 (0.473-0.667) and 0.583 (0.483-0.677), respectively. Similar results were observed in relation to rebleeding and mortality. In conclusion, lactate clearance had comparable predictive ability compared to established risk scores. Further prospective research is necessary to clarify the potential role of lactate clearance as a reliable risk assessment tool in AUGIB.

Growth Differentiation Factor 15 and Risk of Bleeding Events: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study

Background GDF15 (growth differentiation factor 15) is a potent predictor of bleeding in people with cardiovascular disease. However, whether GDF15 is associated with bleeding in individuals without a history of cardiovascular disease is unknown. Methods and Results The study population was from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study. We studied the association of GDF15 with hospitalized bleeding events among 9205 participants (1993-1995) without prior bleeding and cardiovascular disease (mean age 60 years, 57% women, 21% Black). Plasma levels of GDF15 were measured in relative fluorescence units using DNA-based aptamer technology. Bleeding was ascertained using discharge codes. We examined hazard ratios (HRs) of incident bleeding using Cox models and risk prediction with the addition of GDF15 to clinical predictors of bleeding. There were 1328 hospitalizations with bleeding during a median follow-up of 22.5 years. The majority (76.5%) were because of gastrointestinal bleeding. The absolute incidence rate of bleeding per 1000 person-years was 11.64 in the highest quartile of GDF15 versus 5.22 in the lowest quartile. The highest versus lowest quartile of GDF15 demonstrated an adjusted HR of 2.00 (95% CI, 1.69-2.35) for total bleeding. The findings were consistent when we examined bleeding as the primary discharge diagnosis. The addition of GDF15 to clinical predictors of bleeding improved the C-statistic by 0.006 (0.002-0.011) from 0.684 to 0.690, P=0.008. Conclusions Higher levels of GDF15 were associated with bleeding events and improved the risk prediction beyond clinical predictors in individuals without cardiovascular disease.

Management of Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Updated ACG Guideline

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for hospitalization in the United States and is associated with significant utilization of hospital resources, as well as considerable morbidity and mortality. These revised guidelines implement the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools, thresholds for red blood cell transfusion, reversal agents for patients on anticoagulants, diagnostic testing including colonoscopy and computed tomography angiography (CTA), endoscopic therapeutic options, and management of antithrombotic medications after hospital discharge. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include recommendations for the use of risk stratification tools to identify patients with LGIB at low risk of a hospital-based intervention, the role for reversal agents in patients with life-threatening LGIB on vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants, the increasing role for CTA in patients with severe LGIB, and the management of patients who have a positive CTA. We recommend that most patients requiring inpatient colonoscopy undergo a nonurgent colonoscopy because performing an urgent colonoscopy within 24 hours of presentation has not been shown to improve important clinical outcomes such as rebleeding. Finally, we provide updated recommendations regarding resumption of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications after cessation of LGIB.

Scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding

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

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.

Risk stratifying patients with non-varicosic upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage using the Glasgow-Blatchford score: A case series of 91 patients

Introduction

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH) often leads to systematic hospitalization and emergency endoscopy. However, in most cases, it does not constitute an immediate life threat. This study aimed to evaluate the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) in predicting the need for transfusions, and/or endoscopic or surgical treatments.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective monocentric study including 91 patients admitted in the general surgery department of the Hospital La Rabta Tunis for a NVUGIH.

Univariate analysis was performed with the Student t-test for continuous variables and with the Chi-square test for categorical variables. For a cut-off point of 9, we calculated the sensibility and the sensitivity of the GBS to predict the need for transfusions and/or hemostatic procedure.

Results

During the study period, 91 patients were admitted for NVUGIH. Sixty-one patients (67%) were transfused. Seven patients (7.7%) underwent emergency surgery and two patients had endoscopic hemostasis.

The predictive factors for the use of transfusion and/or hemostasic treatments were: Age >50 years, ASA score, HR ≥ 90 bpm, pallor, Hb ≤ 9,5 g/dl, Urea ≥9,7 mmol/L.

For a cut-off of 9 points of the GBS, sensitivity was 85.71% and specificity 92.86%. The positive predictive value was 96%. The negative predictive value was 74%.

Conclusion

The main interest of the GBS lies in dispatching the patients between intensive care units for therapeutic intervention (if GBS> = 9) and ordinary hospitalization for surveillance (if GBS <9). It then makes it possible to rationalize the management of patients with digestive hemorrhage to identify those requiring hospital treatments (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, or surgery).

•

Non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding often leads to systematic emergency endoscopy.

•

In most cases, bleeding does not constitute an immediate life threat.

•

The Glasgow-Blatschford score can be reliable to predict the need for therapeutic intervention.

•

For a score inferior to nine, patients can be admitted into an ordinary unit.

Comparison of Risk Scores for Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Clinical prediction models, or risk scores, can be used to risk stratify patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), although the most discriminative score is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To identify all LGIB risk scores available and compare their prognostic performance.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, through August 31, 2021, was conducted. Non-English-language articles were excluded.

STUDY SELECTION

Observational and interventional studies deriving or validating an LGIB risk score for the prediction of a clinical outcome were included. Studies including patients younger than 16 years or limited to a specific patient population or a specific cause of bleeding were excluded. Two investigators independently screened the studies, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were abstracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline independently by 2 investigators and pooled using random-effects models.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Summary diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) determined a priori were calculated for each risk score and outcome combination.

RESULTS

A total of 3268 citations were identified, of which 9 studies encompassing 12 independent cohorts and 4 risk scores (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, no diarrhea, no abdominal tenderness, blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg, antiplatelet drug use (nonaspirin), albumin <3.0 g/dL, disease score ≥2 (according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index), and syncope], and BLEED [ongoing bleeding, low systolic blood pressure, elevated prothrombin time, erratic mental status, and unstable comorbid disease]) were included in the meta-analysis. For the prediction of safe discharge, the AUROC for the Oakland score was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88). For major bleeding, the AUROC was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) for the Oakland score, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for the Strate score, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.62) for the NOBLADS score, and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69) for the BLEED score. For transfusion, the AUROC was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00) for the Oakland score and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.90) for the NOBLADS score. For hemostasis, the AUROC was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.32-0.40) for the Oakland score, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85) for the Strate score, and 0.24 (95% CI, 0.20-0.28) for the NOBLADS score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Oakland score was the most discriminative LGIB risk score for predicting safe discharge, major bleeding, and need for transfusion, whereas the Strate score was best for predicting need for hemostasis. This study suggests that these scores can be used to predict outcomes from LGIB and guide clinical care accordingly.

How do we identify acute medical admissions that are suitable for same day emergency care?

Medical emergencies causing unplanned hospital admission place considerable demands on acute healthcare services. Some patients can be assessed and treated through ambulatory pathways without inpatient admission, via same day emergency care (SDEC), potentially benefiting patients and reducing demands on inpatient services. There is currently considerable variation within acute medicine in aspects of SDEC delivery ranging from overall service design to patient selection methods. Scoring systems identifying patients likely to be successfully managed through SDEC services have been suggested, but evidence of utility in diverse populations is lacking. Specific scoring systems exist for some common medical problems, including cardiac chest pain and pulmonary embolism, but further research is needed to demonstrate how these are most effectively incorporated into SDEC services. This review defines SDEC and describes the variation in services nationally. It reviews the evidence for their clinical impact, tools to screen patients for SDEC and current gaps in our knowledge regarding service deployment.

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.

How Can Patient's Risk Dictate the Timing of Endoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

INTRODUCTION

Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) management has improved substantially in the last decades, there is still much controversy regarding the optimal timing for performance of endoscopy. Recent guidelines suggest performing an early endoscopy within 24 h of nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) presentation, although its impact on patients with different bleeding risks remains unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of performing endoscopy within 24 h on NVUGIB outcomes and to compare it in patients with lower-risk vs. higher-risk bleeding.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing upper endoscopy for suspected NVUGIB over 4 years. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and outcome data were collected. Lower-risk bleeding was defined as a Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) <12 and higher-risk bleeding was defined as a GBS ≥12.

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients with suspected NVUGIB were included, 55% of whom had higher-risk bleeding. Endoscopy was performed within 24 h in 62.1% of the patients. In lower-risk bleeding patients, performance of endoscopy within 24 h was associated with a higher need for endoscopic treatment (OR = 2.6; 95% CI 1.2-5.7; p = 0.004), a lower 30-day mortality (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.27-0.63; p = 0.03), and a lower need for transfusion (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36-0.92; p = 0.02). In higher-risk bleeding patients, there were no statistically significant differences in NVUGIB outcomes in performing endoscopy within 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy within 24 h of presentation was associated with a lower need for transfusion, a higher need for endoscopic treatment, and a lower 30-day mortality in lower-risk NVUGIB patients. Thus, performing endoscopy within the first 24 h of presentation can have a positive impact on NVUGIB outcomes even in lower-risk bleeding.

Update on the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common emergency presentation requiring prompt resuscitation and management. Peptic ulcers are the most common cause of the condition. Thorough initial management with a structured approach is vital with appropriate intravenous fluid resuscitation and use of a restrictive transfusion threshold of 7-8 g/dL. Pre-endoscopic scoring tools enable identification of patients at high risk and at very low risk who might benefit from specific management. Endoscopy should be carried out within 24 h of presentation for patients admitted to hospital, although optimal timing for patients at a higher risk within this period is less clear. Endoscopic treatment of high risk lesions and use of subsequent high dose proton pump inhibitors is a cornerstone of non-variceal bleeding management. Variceal haemorrhage results in higher mortality than non-variceal haemorrhage and, if suspected, antibiotics and vasopressors should be administered urgently, before endoscopy. Oesophageal variceal bleeding requires endoscopic band ligation, whereas bleeding from gastric varices requires thrombin or tissue glue injection. Recurrent bleeding is managed by repeat endoscopic treatment. If uncontrolled bleeding occurs, interventional radiological embolisation or surgery is required for non-variceal bleeding or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement for variceal bleeding.

Comparison of risk scoring systems for critical care patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: predicting mortality and length of stay

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common reason for intensive care admission. While there exist a number of UGIB scoring systems which are used to predict mortality, there are limited studies assessing the discriminative value of these scores in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The purpose of this study was to analyse five different UGIB scoring systems in predicting ICU mortality and length of stay and compare them to two commonly used ICU mortality scoring systems.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified all patients requiring ICU admission for UGIB to St James's Hospital over an 18-month period. We calculated their AIM65, Glasgow- Blatchford score, pre- and post-Rockall score, ABC, APACHE II and SOFA scores. We used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to compare the predictive values of these six scoring systems for ICU and hospital mortality as well as ICU length of stay greater than seven days.

RESULTS

APACHE II showed excellent discriminative value in predicting mortality in ICU patients (AUROC: 0.87; CI: 0.75-0.99) while the SOFA score showed good discriminative value (AUROC: 0.71; CI: 0.50-0.93). None of the UGIB scoring systems predicted mortality in these patients. All scoring systems showed poor discriminative value in predicting ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

We were not able to validate any of these UGIB scoring systems for mortality or length of stay prediction in ICU patients. This study supports the validity of APACHE II as a clinical tool for predicting mortality in ICU patients with UGIB.

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.

AIMS65 predicts prognosis of patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding; a comparison with other risk-scoring systems

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Duodenal ulcer bleeding has a higher risk of mortality than bleeding from other portions of the gastrointestinal tract. AIMS65 is an effective risk-scoring system to predict prognosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and can be easily calculated without endoscopic findings. In this study, we investigate the usefulness of AIMS65 to predict prognosis of patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Two hundred and fifty-five patients with endoscopically diagnosed duodenal ulcer bleeding at Kurashiki Central hospital from July 2007 to June 2017 were studied. We compared AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), admission Rockall, and full Rockall scoring systems for predicting in-hospital mortality by calculating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality due to duodenal ulcer bleeding occurred in 17 (6.7%). Scores of all scoring systems were significantly higher in patients with in-hospital mortality than in patients without it. AUROC values for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.83 in AIMS65, 0.74 in GBS, 0.76 in admission Rockall score, and 0.82 in full Rockall score, a statistically insignificant difference among the systems. In AIMS65, score more than or equal to 2 was an optimal value to predict in-hospital mortality, with sensitivities of 88.2% and specificities of 59.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

AIMS65 predicted in-hospital mortality of patients with duodenal ulcer bleeding as accurately as did other scoring systems. Given its simplicity of calculation, AIMS65 may be a more clinically practical system in the management of bleeding duodenal ulcer patients.

Clinical Decision Rules in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Gastrointestinal Emergencies

Although abdominal pain is a common chief complaint in the emergency department, only 1 in 6 patients with abdominal pain are diagnosed with a gastrointestinal (GI) emergency. These patients often undergo extensive testing as well as hospitalizations to rule out an acute GI emergency and there is evidence that not all patients benefit from such management. Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis and upper GI bleeding to identify those patients who may safely forgo further testing or hospital admission. Further validation studies demonstrating the superiority of these CDRs over contemporary practice are needed.

Current Status and Future Perspective of Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Review of Recent Literature

With the decreasing incidence of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) over the past two decades, the clinician experience of managing patients with PUB has also declined, especially for young endoscopists. A patient with PUB management requires collaborative care involving the emergency department, gastroenterologist, radiologist, and surgeon, from initial assessment to hospital discharge. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) methods has remarkably improved people's lives. In particular, AI systems have shown great potential in many areas of gastroenterology to increase human performance. Colonoscopy polyp detection or diagnosis by an AI system was recently introduced for commercial use to improve endoscopist performance. Although PUB is a longstanding health problem, these newly introduced AI technologies may soon impact endoscopists' clinical practice by improving the quality of care for these patients. To update the current status of AI application in PUB, we reviewed recent relevant literature and provided future perspectives that are required to integrate such AI tools into real-world practice.

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.

Timing of Emergency Endoscopy for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Literature Review

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common cause for Emergency Department and hospital admissions and has significant mortality and morbidity if it remains untreated. Upper endoscopy is the key procedure for both diagnosis and treatment of acute upper GI bleeding. The aim of this article is to review the optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleeding. The cost-effectiveness and the influence of urgent or emergent endoscopy on patients' outcomes are discussed. Also, we compare and contrast the available evidence and guidelines regarding the recommended time points for performing endoscopy in different clinical settings.

[Guidelines for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding]

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refers to bleeding that develops in the gastrointestinal tract proximal to the ligament of Treitz. NVUGIB is an important cause for visiting the hospital and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although European and Asian-Pacific guidelines have been published, there has been no previous guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB in Korea. Korea is a country with a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and patients have easy accessibility to receive endoscopy. Therefore, we believe that guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB are mandatory. The Korean Society of Gastroenterology reviewed recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines on NVUGIB in Korea.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

ABC score: a new risk score that accurately predicts mortality in acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: an international multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Existing scores are not accurate at predicting mortality in upper (UGIB) and lower (LGIB) gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new pre-endoscopy score for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB.

DESIGN AND SETTING

International cohort study. Patients presenting to hospital with UGIB at six international centres were used to develop a risk score for predicting mortality using regression analyses. The score's performance in UGIB and LGIB was externally validated and compared with existing scores using four international datasets. We calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, specificities and outcome among patients classified as low risk and high risk.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESULTS

We included 3012 UGIB patients in the development cohort, and 4019 UGIB and 2336 LGIB patients in the validation cohorts. Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities (ABC) score was closer associated with mortality in UGIB and LGIB (AUROCs: 0.81-84) than existing scores (AUROCs: 0.65-0.75; p≤0.02). In UGIB, patients with low ABC score (≤3), medium ABC score (4-7) and high ABC score (≥8) had 30-day mortality rates of 1.0%, 7.0% and 25%, respectively. Patients classified low risk using ABC score had lower mortality than those classified low risk with AIMS65 (threshold ≤1) (1.0 vs 4.5%; p<0.001). In LGIB, patients with low, medium and high ABC scores had in-hospital mortality rates of 0.6%, 6.3% and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previous scores, ABC score has good performance for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB, allowing early identification and targeted management of patients at high or low risk of death.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Advancing care for acute gastrointestinal bleeding using artificial intelligence

The future of gastrointestinal bleeding will include the integration of machine learning algorithms to enhance clinician risk assessment and decision making. Machine learning algorithms have shown promise in outperforming existing clinical risk scores for both upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding but have not been validated in any prospective clinical trials. The adoption of electronic health records provides an exciting opportunity to deploy risk prediction tools in real time and also to expand the data available to train predictive models. Machine learning algorithms can be used to identify patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding using data extracted from the electronic health record. This can lead to an automated process to find patients with symptoms of acute gastrointestinal bleeding so that risk prediction tools can be then triggered to consistently provide decision support to the physician. Neural network models can be used to provide continuous risk predictions for patients who are at higher risk, which can be used to guide triage of patients to appropriate levels of care. Finally, the future will likely include neural network-based analysis of endoscopic stigmata of bleeding to help guide best practices for hemostasis during the endoscopic procedure. Machine learning will enhance the delivery of care at every level for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding through identifying very low risk patients for outpatient management, triaging high risk patients for higher levels of care, and guiding optimal intervention during endoscopy.

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.

Characteristics of peptic ulcer bleeding in cirrhotic patients with esophageal and gastric varices

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is common in liver cirrhosis. Although esophageal and gastric varices (EGV) is the main bleeding source, there were still a proportion of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the characteristic of variceal bleeding and peptic ulcer bleeding in liver cirrhosis. Cirrhotic patients with confirmed UGIB by urgent endoscopy from July 2012 to June 2018 were enrolled, and classified into peptic ulcer bleeding group (n = 248) and variceal bleeding group (n = 402). Clinical and endoscopic characteristics, therapeutic efficacy and prognosis were evaluated, and independent risk factors for 42-day morality were determined. The mean age and gender ratio of peptic ulcer bleeding group were higher than those in variceal bleeding group (55.58 ± 11.37 vs. 52.87 ± 11.57, P < 0.01; 4.51:1 vs. 2.87:1, P = 0.023). Variceal bleeding group most commonly presented as red blood emesis and coffee grounds (67.16%), while peptic ulcer group primarily manifested as melena (62.10%). Hepatocellular carcinoma was more prevalent in peptic ulcer group (141 vs. 119, P < 0.01). Albumin level in variceal bleeding group was lower higher (P < 0.01), but serum bilirubin, creatinine and prothrombin time were significantly higher (all P < 0.01). Success rate of endoscopic hemostasis for variceal bleeding and peptic ulcer bleeding was 89.05% and 94.35% (P = 0.021). Univariate and multivariate analysis identified prothrombin time (P = 0.041, OR [95% CI] 0.884 [0.786–0.995]), MELD score (P = 0.000, OR [95% CI] 1.153 [1.073–1.240]), emergency intervention (P = 0.002, OR [95% CI] 8.656 [2.219–33.764]), hepatic encephalopathy before bleeding (P = 0.003, OR [95% CI] 8.119 [2.084–31.637]) and hepatic renal syndrome before bleeding (P = 0.029, OR [95% CI] 3.877 [1.152–13.045]) as the independent predictors for 42-day mortality. Peptic ulcer bleeding should be distinguished from variceal bleeding by clinical and endoscopic characteristics.

Guidelines for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refers to bleeding that develops in the gastrointestinal tract proximal to the ligament of Treitz. NVUGIB requires hospitalization and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although European and Asian-Pacific guidelines have been published, there have been no previous guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB in Korea. Korea has a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infections, and patients have easy accessibility to endoscopy. Therefore, we believe that guidelines regarding management of NVUGIB in Korea are essential. The Korean Society of Gastroenterology reviewed the recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines on NVUGIB in Korea.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

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.

Correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score, shock index, and Forrest classification in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding

Background/aim

To investigate the correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score, shock index, and Forrest classification in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).

Materials and methods

A total of 955 patients with PUB were assessed using the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index, as well as the Forrest classification based on their gastroscopy results. The correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index was determined using scatter plot analysis, and the correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score or shock index and Forrest classification was determined using Spearman’s analysis.

Results

Both the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index showed the highest values in patients with Forrest class IIa. The Glasgow-Blatchford score was significantly higher than patients with Forrest class Ib/IIc/III (P < 0.05), and the shock index was significantly higher than patients with Forrest class Ib/IIb/III (P < 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index, at r = 0.427 (P < 0.001). A negative correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and Forrest classification, at r = –0.111 (P < 0.01), and between the shock index and Forrest classification, at r = –0.138 (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

A moderate correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index in patients with PUB, and the correlation between the Forrest classification and Glasgow-Blatchford score or shock index was relatively low.

Comparison of three risk scores to predict outcomes in upper gastrointestinal bleeding; modifying Glasgow-Blatchford with albumin

INTRODUCTION

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is of great importance. In this way, we aimed to evaluate the performance of three well known scoring systems of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) and Full Rockall Score (FRS) in predicting adverse outcomes in patients with UGIB as well as their ability in identifying low risk patients for outpatient management. We also aimed to assess whether changing albumin cutoff in AIMS65 and addition of albumin to GBS add predictive value to these scores.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study on adult patients who were admitted to Razi hospital (Rasht, Iran) with diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding between March 21, 2013 and March 21, 2017. Patients who didn't undergo endoscopy or had incomplete medical data were excluded. Initially, we calculated three score systems of AIMS65, GBS and FRS for each patient by using initial Vital signs and lab data. Secondary, we modified AIMS65 and GBS by changing albumin threshold from <3.5 to <3.0 in AIMS65 and addition of albumin to GBS, respectively. Primary outcomes were defined as in hospital mortality, 30-day rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and endoscopic therapy. Secondary outcome was defined as composition of primary outcomes excluding need for blood transfusion. We used AUROC to assess predictive accuracy of risk scores in primary and secondary outcomes. For albumin-GBS model, the AUROC was only calculated for predicting mortality and secondary outcome. The negative predictive value for AIMS65, GBS and modified AIMS65 was then calculated.

RESULT

Of 563 patients, 3% died in hospital, 69.4% needed blood transfusion, 13.1% needed endoscopic therapy and 3% had 30-day rebleeding. The leading cause of UGIB was erosive disease. In predicting composite of adverse outcomes all scores had statistically significant accuracy with highest AUROC for albumin-GBS. However, in predicting in hospital mortality, only albumin-GBS, modified AIMS65 and AIMS65 had acceptable accuracy. Interestingly, albumin, alone, had higher predictive accuracy than other original risk scores. None of the four scores could predict 30-day rebleeding accurately; on the contrary, their accuracy in predicting need for blood transfusion was high enough. The negative predictive value for GBS was 96.6% in score of ≤2 and 85.7% and 90.2% in score of zero in AIMS65 and modified AIMS65, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Neither of risk scores was highly accurate as a prognostic factor in our population; however, modified AIMS65 and albumin-GBS may be optimal choice in evaluating risk of mortality and general assessment. In identifying patient for safe discharge, GBS ≤ 2 seemed to be advisable choice.

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.

Outcomes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Based on Time to Endoscopy: A Retrospective Study

Introduction Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a major burden on the health care system. The timing of endoscopy has been an ongoing debate and data on the association of early endoscopy with a better or worse clinical outcome are conflicting. In our study, we aimed to identify the benefits versus the risks of performing an urgent endoscopy in regards to the number of endoscopic interventions, length of hospital stay, number of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfused, and mortality.  Methodology This is a retrospective record-based study. A total of 806 charts were reviewed and 251 patients with the signs and symptoms of UGIB on presentation were included in the study. Patients with variceal bleeding, lower gastrointestinal bleeding, insignificant bleeds with no drop in H/H, GI bleed not being the presenting complaint on admission, and patients on anticoagulation were excluded. Results Out of the patients who underwent an urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), 26.2% needed a second-look EGD 48 hours after the first EGD when compared to 4% and 2% in the early (12-24 hours) and late (>24 hours) endoscopy groups, respectively. In patients who underwent urgent EGD, 23% had active bleeding and it was statistically significant when compared to the other groups. The active bleeding limited the visualization during the endoscopy, which led to a repeat EGD in the urgent EGD group. If an endoscopic intervention was received, patients having EGD >24 hours received a smaller number of interventions. There was no statistical difference in the Blatchford scores between the three groups, indicating that the groups were similar in morbidity. No difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, or number of blood transfusions received, surgical or interventional radiology-guided interventions was found between the three groups. Conclusion Patients who underwent urgent endoscopy had more procedures, with no difference in mortality, number of units of blood transfused, or length of hospitalization when compared to the early or late endoscopy groups.

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Review of Current Guidelines and Future Perspectives

Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide which is encountered in the ambulatory and hospital settings. Hemorrhage form the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is categorized as upper GIB, small bowel bleeding (also formerly referred to as obscure GIB) or lower GIB. Although the etiologies of GIB are variable, a strong, consistent risk factor is use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of GIB have led to improved outcomes. We present an updated review of the current practices regarding the diagnosis and management of non-variceal GIB, and possible future directions.