Blatchford score is a useful tool for predicting the need for intervention in cancer patients with upper gastrointestinal 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.

Risk Stratification in Cancer Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall and AIMS65, and Development of a New Scoring System

Background/Aims

Few studies have measured the accuracy of prognostic scores for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) among cancer patients. Thereby, we compared the prognostic scores for predicting major outcomes in cancer patients with UGIB. Secondarily, we developed a new model to detect patients who might require hemostatic care.

Methods

A prospective research was performed in a tertiary hospital by enrolling cancer patients admitted with UGIB. Clinical and endoscopic findings were obtained through a prospective database. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to gauge the power of each score.

Results

From April 2015 to May 2016, 243 patients met the inclusion criteria. The AIMS65 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.85) best predicted intensive care unit admission, while the Glasgow-Blatchford score best predicted blood transfusion (AUC 0.82) and the low-risk group (AUC 0.92). All scores failed to predict hemostatic therapy and rebleeding. The new score was superior (AUC 0.74) in predicting hemostatic therapy. The AIMS65 (AUC 0.84) best predicted in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions

The scoring systems for prognostication were validated in the group of cancer patients with UGIB. A new score was developed to predict hemostatic therapy. Following this result, future prospective research should be performed to validate the new score.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The Predictive Value of Preendoscopic Risk Scores to Predict Adverse Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Risk stratification of emergency department (ED) patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) using preendoscopic risk scores can aid ED physicians in disposition decision-making. We conducted a systematic review to assess the predictive value of preendoscopic risk scores for 30-day serious adverse events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to March 2015. We included studies involving adult ED UGIB patients evaluating preendoscopic risk scores and excluded reviews, case reports, and animal studies. The composite outcome included 30-day mortality, recurrent bleeding, and need for intervention. In two phases (screening and full review), two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted patient-level data. The consensus data were used for analysis. We reported sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

We identified 3,173 articles, of which 16 were included: three studied Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS); one studied clinical Rockall score (cRockall); two studied AIMS65; six compared GBS and cRockall; three compared GBS, a modification of the GBS, and cRockall; and one compared the GBS and AIMS65. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity of the GBS were 0.98 and 0.16, respectively; for the cRockall they were 0.93 and 0.24, respectively; and for the AIMS65 they were 0.79 and 0.61, respectively. The GBS with a cutoff point of 0 had a sensitivity of 0.99 and a specificity of 0.08.

CONCLUSION

The GBS with a cutoff point of 0 was superior over other cutoff points and risk scores for identifying low-risk patients but had a very low specificity. None of the risk scores identified by our systematic review were robust and, hence, cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice. Future prospective studies are needed to develop robust new scores for use in ED patients with UGIB.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the complications, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need of clinical intervention, several risk scores have been proposed and their use consistently recommended by international guidelines. The use of risk scoring systems in early assessment of patients suffering from UGIB may be useful to distinguish high-risks patients, who may need clinical intervention and hospitalization, from low risk patients with a lower chance of developing complications, in which management as outpatients can be considered. Although several scores have been published and validated for predicting different outcomes, the most frequently cited ones are the Rockall score and the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS). While Rockall score, which incorporates clinical and endoscopic variables, has been validated to predict mortality, the GBS, which is based on clinical and laboratorial parameters, has been studied to predict the need of clinical intervention. Despite the advantages previously reported, their use in clinical decisions is still limited. This review describes the different risk scores used in the UGIB setting, highlights the most important research, explains why and when their use may be helpful, reflects on the problems that remain unresolved and guides future research with practical impact.

Prognostic Value of Treatment Setting in Patients With Cancer Having Pulmonary Embolism: Comparison With the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index

Background:

Active cancer is a poor prognostic factor for survival after pulmonary embolism (PE). This retrospective cohort study was performed to investigate how accurately the pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) predicts 30-day mortality in patients with active cancer. Whether the treatment setting (palliative vs curative) could predict mortality in these patients was also investigated.

Methods:

All consecutive patients with active cancer and PE who visited the emergency department of Asan Medical Center in January 2007 to June 2014 were identified. The covariates for predicting 30-day mortality were PESI classification, treatment setting (curative vs palliative), brain natriuretic peptide ≥ 150 ng/L, troponin I ≥ 0.10 ng/mL, right ventricular dysfunction, deep vein thrombosis, and anticoagulants used. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess the association between treatment setting and 30-day mortality.

Results:

The PESI classification and 30-day mortality did not associate significantly. Area under the receiver–operating curve of the PESI was 0.565 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.453-0.677). Palliative treatment setting associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, regardless of the PESI classification (adjusted hazard ratio: 3.72, 95% CI: 1.49-9.26). Treatment setting predicted mortality 30 days, 3 months, and 6 months after PE presentation better than PESI.

Conclusion:

The PESI did not accurately predict mortality in patients with active cancer. Treatment setting was the most important determinant of clinical outcome in these patients. When stratifying patients with active cancer and PE, palliative treatment setting should be considered as it is predictive of high mortality.

Blatchford Score Is Superior to AIMS65 Score in Predicting the Need for Clinical Interventions in Elderly Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed

Background. Blatchford and AIMS65 scores were developed to risk stratify patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB). We sought to assess the performance of Blatchford and AIMS65 scores in predicting outcomes in elderly patients with nonvariceal UGIB. Methods. A retrospective cohort study of elderly patients (over 65 years of age) with nonvariceal UGIB admitted to a tertiary care center. Primary outcome was a combined outcome of in-hospital mortality, need for any therapeutic endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention, rebleeding within 30 days, or blood transfusion. Secondary outcome was a combined outcome of in-hospital mortality or need for an intervention to control the bleed. Results. 164 patients were included. The primary outcome occurred in 119 (72.5%) patients. The secondary outcome occurred in 12 patients (7.2%). Blatchford score was superior to AIMS65 score in predicting the primary outcome (area under the receiver-operator curve (AUROC) 0.84 versus 0.68, resp., p < 0.001). Both scores performed poorly in predicting the secondary outcome (AUROC 0.56 versus 0.52, resp., p = 0.18). Conclusions. Blatchford score could be useful in predicting the need for hospital based interventions in elderly patients with nonvariceal UGIB. Blatchford and AIMS65 scores are poor predictors of the need for a therapeutic intervention to control bleeding.