Prediction of severity and outcomes of colon ischaemia using a novel prognostic model: a clinical multicenter study

Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients admitted for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The Oakland score was developed to predict safe discharge in patients who present to the emergency department with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). In this study, we retrospectively evaluated if this score can be implemented to assess safe discharge (score ≤ 10) at WellStar Atlanta Medical Center (WAMC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 108 patients admitted at WAMC from January 1, 2020 to December 30, 2021 was performed. Patients with LGIB based on the ICD-10 codes were included. Oakland score was calculated using 7 variables (age, sex, previous LGIB, digital rectal exam, pulse, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and hemoglobin (Hgb)) for all patients at admission and discharge from the hospital. The total score ranges from 0 to 35 and a score of ≤ 10 is a cut-off that has been shown to predict safe discharge. Hgb and SBP are the main contributors to the score, where lower values correspond to a higher Oakland score. Descriptive and multivariate analysis was performed using SPSS 23 software.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients met the inclusion criteria, 53 (49.1%) were female with racial distribution was as follows: 89 (82.4%) African Americans, 17 (15.7%) Caucasian, and 2 (1.9%) others. Colonoscopy was performed in 69.4% patients; and 61.1% patients required blood transfusion during hospitalization. Mean SBP records at admission and discharge were 129.0 (95% CI, 124.0-134.1) and 130.7 (95% CI,125.7-135.8), respectively. The majority (59.2%) of patients had baseline anemia and the mean Hgb values were 11.0 (95% CI, 10.5-11.5) g/dL at baseline prior to hospitalization, 8.8 (95% CI, 8.2-9.5) g/dL on arrival and 9.4 (95% CI, 9.0-9.7) g/dL at discharge from hospital. On admission, 100/108 (92.6%) of patients had an Oakland score of > 10 of which almost all patients (104/108 (96.2%)) continued to have persistent elevation of Oakland Score greater than 10 at discharge. Even though, the mean Oakland score improved from 21.7 (95% CI, 20.4-23.1) of the day of arrival to 20.3 (95% CI, 19.4-21.2) at discharge, only 4/108 (3.7%) of patients had an Oakland score of ≤ 10 at discharge. Despite this, only 9/108 (8.33%) required readmission for LGIB during a 1-year follow-up. We found that history of admission for previous LGIB was associated with readmission with adjusted odds ratio 4.42 (95% CI, 1.010-19.348, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, nearly all patients who had Oakland score of > 10 at admission continued to have a score above 10 at discharge. If the Oakland Score was used as the sole criteria for discharge most patients would not have met discharge criteria. Interestingly, most of these patients did not require readmission despite an elevated Oakland score at time of discharge, indicating the Oakland score did not really predict safe discharge. A potential confounder was the Oakland score did not consider baseline anemia during calculation. A prospective study to evaluate a modified Oakland score that considers baseline anemia could add value in this patient population.

Relationship of Immunonutritional factor with Changes in Liver Volume after Portal Vein Embolization

Background

To identify predictors of changes in hepatic volumes after portal vein embolization, we examined the relationship with preoperative nutritional and immunological parameters.

Patients and Methods

Ninety-three patients who underwent portal vein embolization were included. The control group comprised 13 patients who underwent right hepatectomy without portal vein embolization. Computed tomographic volumetric parameter was measured for changes in embolized and nonembolized liver. Correlation with various candidates of immunonutritional parameters was examined.

Results

Difference in increased liver ratio was 9.1%. C-reactive protein levels significantly increased after portal vein embolization (P < .01), whereas albumin and total cholesterol levels significantly decreased, respectively (P < .01). The C-reactive protein/albumin ratio, prognostic nutritional index, Controlling Nutritional Status score, and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score were significantly different, respectively (P < .01). Prothrombin activity and total cholesterol level significantly correlated with the increased change in nonembolized liver (P < .05). The C-reactive protein and C-reactive protein/albumin ratio after portal vein embolization negatively correlated with hypertrophic ratio (P < .05). By comparing posthepatectomy outcomes between 64 patients undergoing portal vein embolization and 13 who did not, the prevalence of severe complications and mortality in the portal vein embolization group was not different from that in the non–portal vein embolization group. Liver activity at 15 minutes > 0.92 and increased liver volume ≥ 10% tended to correlate with lower prevalence of severe complications. Only increased intraoperative blood loss ≥ 1,500 mL was significantly associated with morbidity and mortality (P < .05).

Conclusion

Contrary to our hypothesis, immunonutritional parameters, except C-reactive protein and C-reactive protein/albumin ratio, did not reflect hypertrophy after portal vein embolization. Although it is difficult to predict the hypertrophic degree, the strategy of scheduled hepatectomy should be switched in case of impaired inflammatory status after portal vein embolization.