Different scoring systems to predict 6-week mortality in cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding: a retrospective analysis of 202 patients

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.

Updated strategies in the management of acute variceal haemorrhage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the most recent studies regarding the management of acute esophageal variceal haemorrhage.

RECENT FINDINGS

New randomized control trials and meta-analyses confirmed the role of early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the management of acute variceal haemorrhage in Child-Pugh C (10-13) and B patients with active bleeding. A recent randomized controlled trial focused on the duration of vasoactive therapy showed no difference between 2 and 5 days of octreotide. A randomized trial showed decreased use of blood products for the correction of coagulopathy using a thromboelastography-guided approach (vs. conventional parameters) as well as decreased bleeding rates when compared with standard of care. A meta-analysis found that for rescue of variceal bleeding, self-expanding metallic stents were more efficacious and safer than balloon tamponade. In addition, studies showed that Child-Pugh C patients and those with hepatic vein pressure gradient more than 20 were at the highest risk of treatment failure, while model for end-stage liver disease was highly predictive of in-hospital mortality.

SUMMARY

In patients with severe coagulopathy and uncontrolled bleeding, TEG-based transfusion strategies are recommended. Antibiotics should be used for all cirrhotic patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but should be tailored in accordance to local resistance patterns. Early TIPS for high-risk patients has been shown to have a significant survival benefit. Certain aspects of the management of variceal bleeding remain poorly studied such as the role of early TIPS in Child-B patients as well as strategies for rescue therapy in patients who are not TIPS candidates, and require further investigation.

Risk stratification in acute variceal bleeding: Comparison of the AIMS65 score to established upper gastrointestinal bleeding and liver disease severity risk stratification scoring systems in predicting mortality and rebleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Risk stratification is recommended in all patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB). It remains unclear whether liver disease severity or upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) scoring algorithms offer superior predictive ability. We aimed to validate the AIMS65 score as a predictor of mortality in AVB, and to compare AIMS65 with established UGIB and liver disease severity risk stratification scores.

METHODS

International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes identified patients presenting with AVB to three tertiary centers over a 48-month period. Patients were risk-stratified using AIMS65, Rockall, pre-endoscopy Rockall, Child-Pugh, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and United Kingdom MELD (UKELD) scores. Primary outcomes were inpatient and 6-week mortality and inpatient rebleeding.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-three patients were included. Inpatient and 6-week mortality were 13.9% and 15.5% respectively. Prediction of inpatient mortality by AIMS65 (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUROC: 0.84]) was equivalent to UGIB (Rockall: 0.79, pre-Rockall: 0.78) and liver risk scores (MELD: 0.81, UKELD: 0.79, Child-Pugh: 0.78). AIMS65 score ≥3 best defined high- and low-risk groups for inpatient mortality (mortality 37.7% vs 4.9%). AIMS65 (AUROC: 0.62) was equivalent to UGIB risk scores (pre-Rockall: 0.64, Rockall: 0.70) in predicting inpatient rebleeding and superior to liver risk scores (MELD: 0.56, UKELD: 0.57, Child-Pugh: 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

AIMS65 is equivalent to established UGIB and liver disease severity risk stratification scores in predicting mortality, and superior to liver scores in predicting rebleeding.

Seasonal Impacts on the Incidence of Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage: A Nationwide Analysis across a Decade

Background/Aims

Seasonal variation has previously been reported in relation to the incidence of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; however, the impact of seasonal variation on variceal bleeding is not known.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2005 to 2014. International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification- 9th Revision codes were used to identify patients hospitalized with a primary or secondary diagnosis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. The data were analyzed based on the month of hospitalization. Our primary aim was to assess seasonal variations in variceal bleeding-related hospitalizations. The secondary aims were to assess the impact of seasonal variation on outcomes in variceal bleeding including in-hospital mortality and healthcare resource utilization.

Results

A total of 348,958 patients hospitalized with esophageal variceal bleeding were included. The highest number of hospitalizations was reported in December (99.3/day) and the lowest was reported in June (90.8/day). In-hospital mortality was highest in January (11.5%) and lowest in June (9.8%). There was no significant difference in hospital length of stay or total hospitalization costs across all months in all years combined.

Conclusions

There appears to be a seasonal variation in the incidence and mortality of variceal hemorrhage in the United States. December was the month with the highest number of daily hospitalizations while the nadir occurred in June.

CLINICAL UTILITY OF RISK SCORES IN VARICEAL BLEEDING

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding remains important cause of upper gastrointestinal bleed. Various risk scores are used in risk stratification for non-variceal bleed. Their utility in variceal bleeding patients is not clear. This study aims to compare probability of these scores in predicting various outcomes in same population.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare probability of these scores in predicting various outcomes in same population. To study characteristics and validate AIMS65, Rockall, Glasgow Blatchford score(GBS), Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva (PNED) score in variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed (UGIB) patients for predicting various outcomes in our population.

METHODS

Three hundred subjects with UGIB were screened prospectively. Of these 141 patients with variceal bleeding were assessed with clinical, blood investigations and endoscopy and risk scores were calculated and compared to non-variceal cases. All cases were followed up for 30 days for mortality, rebleeding, requirement of blood transfusion and need of radiological or surgical intervention.

RESULTS

Variceal bleeding (141) was more common than non variceal (134) and 25 had negative endoscopy. In variceal group, cirrhosis (85%) was most common etiology. Distribution of age and sex were similar in both groups. Presence of coffee coloured vomitus (P=0.002), painless bleed (P=0.001), edema (P=0.001), ascites (P=0.001), hemoglobin <7.5 gms (P<0.001), pH<7.35 (P<0.001), serum bicarbonate level <17.6 mmol/L (P<0.001), serum albumin<2.75 gms% (P<0.001), platelet count <1.2 lacs/µL (P<0.001), high INR 1.35 (P<0.001), BUN >25mmol/L (P<0.001), and ASA status (P<0.001), high lactate >2.85 mmol/L (P=0.001) were significant. However, no factor was found significant on multivariate analysis. Rockall was found to be significant in predicting mortality and rebleed. AIMS65 was also significant in predicting mortality. GBS was significant in predicting blood transfusion and need of intervention. PNED score was significant in all events except mortality.

CONCLUSION

All four scores had lower predictive potential in predicting events in variceal bleed. However, AIMS65 & Rockall score were significant in predicting mortality, while GBS in predicting need of transfusion and intervention. PNED score was significant in all events except mortality.

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.

Comparison of risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in western India: A prospective analysis

AIM

To study the upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) characteristics and to validate the Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford scores (GBS), Progetto Nazionale Emorragica Digestiva (PNED) and albumin, international normalized ratio (INR), mental status, systolic blood pressure, and age > 65 (AIMS65) risk scores in predicting outcomes in patients with UGIB.

METHODS

Three hundred subjects with hematemesis and/or melena were prospectively enrolled and followed up for 30 days. All patients were assessed by hematological investigations, imaging, and endoscopy and risk scores were calculated.

RESULTS

The mean age was 43.5 ± 17.2 years, and 207 (69%) were males. Hematemesis was the most common presentation (94%). Variceal bleeding was the most common etiology (47.7%). Thirty patients died (10%) and 50 had rebleeding (16.7%). On univariate analysis, serum albumin ≤ 2.7 gm% (p = 0.008), Glasgow Coma scale ≤ 13.9 (p = 0.001), serum bilirubin > 3 mg/dL (p = 0.004), serum bicarbonate ≤ 15.7 mEq/L (p = 0.001), systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg (p = 0.004), and arterial pH ≤ 7.3 (p = 0.003) were found to be the predictors of mortality. No variable was found significant on multivariate analysis. All four scores were significant in predicting mortality, but Rockall (area under receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] 0.728) was better than others. Rebleeding was better predicted by PNED (modified) (AUROC 0.705). In predicting the need for transfusion and surgical or radiological intervention, GBS score > 0 was significant while score of < 2 classified patients into low risk for mortality with high negative predictive value.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the variceal bleeding was the commonest cause of UGIB. Rockall score was more significant in predicting mortality while PNED for rebleeding. Low risk for mortality, need for blood transfusion, or interventions were accurately predicted by GBS.