Endoscopic findings in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding clinically classified into three risk groups prior to endoscopy

The Clinical and Endoscopic Profiles of Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) and the Role of the Rockall Scoring System in Predicting Adverse Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the common emergencies seen by physicians. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy remains a crucial tool in the identification of UGIB.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to determine the clinical and endoscopic profiles of UGIB in an adult population.

METHODS

This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital (DMCH), Ludhiana, where 75 patients aged 18 years and above admitted to the hospital with a history of UGIB from July 1 to December 31, 2018, were enrolled in the study. After obtaining the demographic data, all patients underwent clinical examination, laboratory investigations, and video endoscopy. The Rockall scoring system was used to assess their prognosis.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 52.19±6.65 years. The majority (33%) were in the age group of 51-60 years. Of the study population, 82.7% were male and 17.3% were female. Chronic alcohol intake was found to be the most common risk factor, followed by drug intake. On upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, esophageal varices (65.3%) were the most common finding, followed by peptic ulcer disease (25.2%), gastric erosions (2.6%), gastroduodenitis (1.3%), Mallory-Weiss tear (1.3%), carcinoma stomach (1.3%), Camron's lesion (1.3%), and Dieulafoy's lesion (1.3%). Mortality attributed to UGIB was found to be 8%.

CONCLUSION

The present study reported portal hypertension as the most common cause of UGIB, while the most common endoscopic lesions reported were esophageal varices. The factors associated with poor prognosis were age >60 years, shock, respiratory failure, low hemoglobin, low platelet count, deranged international normalized ratio (INR), variceal bleed, renal failure, rebleed, Rockall score ≥ 8, and late endoscopy (>24 hours of admission). Urgent appropriate hospital management definitely helps to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with UGIB.

Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of clinical outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

To compare the predictive ability of six pre-endoscopic scoring systems (ABC, AIMS65, GBS, MAP(ASH), pRS, and T-score) for outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in elderly and younger patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 1260 patients, including 530 elderly patients (age [Formula: see text] 65) and 730 younger patients (age < 65) presenting with UGIB, was performed at Zhongda Hospital Southeast University, from January 2015 to December 2020. Six scoring systems were used.

RESULTS

ABC had the largest areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.827 (0.792-0.858), and 0.958 (0.929-0.987) for elderly and younger groups for predicting mortality respectively. The differences of the AUCs for predicting the outcome of mortality and rebleeding between the two groups were significant for ABC and pRS (p < 0.01). For intervention prediction, significant differences were observed only for pRS [AUC 0.623 (0.578-0.669) vs. 0.699 (0.646-0.752)] (p < 0.05) between the two groups. For intensive care unit (ICU) admission, the AUC for MAP (ASH) [0.791 (0.718-0.865) vs. 0.891 (0.831-0.950)] and pRS [0.610 (0.514-0.706) vs. 0.891 (0.699-0.865)] were more effective for the younger group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). For comparison of scoring systems in the same cohort, ABC was significantly higher than pRS: AUC 0.710 (0.699-0.853, p < 0.05) and T-score 0.670 (0.628-0.710, p < 0.01) for predicting mortality in the elderly group. In the younger group, ABC was significantly higher than GBS and T-score (p < 0.01). MAP(ASH) performs the best in predicting intervention in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ABC and pRS are more accurate for predicting mortality and rebleeding in the younger cohort, and pRS may not be suitable for elderly patients. There was no difference between the two study populations for GBS, AIMS65, and T-score. Except for ICU admission, MAP(ASH) showed fair accuracy for both cohorts.

Evaluation of Six Preendoscopy Scoring Systems to Predict Outcomes for Older Adults with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Objectives

To compare the ability of six preendoscopic scoring systems (ABC, AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), MAP(ASH), pRS, and T-score) to predict outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in older adults.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 602 older adults (age ≥ 65) presenting with UGIB at Zhongda Hospital Southeast University from January 2015 to June 2021. Six scoring systems were used to analyze all patients.

Results

ABC had the largest area under the curve (AUC) (0.833; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.801–0.862) and was significantly higher than pRS 0.696 (95% CI: 0.658–0.733, p < 0.01) and T-score 0.667 (95% CI: 0.628–0.704, p < 0.01) in predicting mortality. MAP(ASH) (0.783; 95% CI: 0.748–0.815) performs the best in predicting intervention and was similar to GBS, T-score, ABC, and AIMS65. The AUCs for MAP(ASH) (0.732; 95% CI: 0.698–0.770), AIMS65 (0.711; 95% CI: 0.672–0.746), and ABC (0.718; 95% CI: 0.680–0.754) were fair for rebleeding, while those of GBS (0.662; 95% CI: 0.617–0.694), T-score (0.641; 95% CI: 0.606–0.684), and pRS (0.609; 95% CI: 0.569–0.648) were performed poorly. MAP(ASH) performs the best in predicting ICU admission (0.784; 95% CI: 0.749–0.816). All the five scores were significantly higher than pRS (p < 0.05 for ABC, AIMS65 and T-score, p < 0.01 for GBS and MAP).

Conclusions

Mortality, intervention, rebleeding, and ICU admission in UGIB for older adults can be predicted well using MAP(ASH). ABC is the most accurate for predicting mortality. Except for rebleeding, GBS has an acceptable performance in predicting ICU admission, mortality, and intervention. AIMS65 and T-score performed moderately, and pRS may not be suitable for the target cohort.

Optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the gold standard for evaluating and treating acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The optimal timing of endoscopy is a very important consideration in the overall management of UGIB, but there is on going uncertainty regarding timing of the procedure, particularly in those with more severe bleeding. This is reflected by inconsistencies between current guidelines. Although evidence suggests endoscopy should be undertaken within 24 h for all admitted patients with UGIB, a small group of patients with severe bleeding or high-risk features may require more urgent endoscopy. The exact timing of the procedure in this high-risk group remains unclear, with recent data suggesting that performing endoscopy too early may be associated with worse outcome. In this article we examine the evidence for optimal timing of endoscopy in patients presenting with UGIB and suggest a clinical approach to this important aspect of patient management.

Clinical Performance of Prediction Rules and Nasogastric Lavage for the Evaluation of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Observational Study

Introduction. The majority of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are admitted for urgent endoscopy as it can be difficult to determine who can be safely managed as an outpatient. Our objective was to compare four clinical prediction scoring systems: Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) and Clinical Rockall, Adamopoulos, and Tammaro scores in a sample of patients presenting to the emergency department of a large US academic center. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients during 2008–2010. Our outcome was significant UGIB defined as high-risk stigmata on endoscopy, or receipt of blood transfusion or surgery, or death. Results. A total of 393 patients met inclusion criteria. The GBS was the most sensitive for detecting significant UGIB at 98.30% and had the highest negative predictive value (90.00%). Adding nasogastric lavage data to the GBS increased the sensitivity to 99.57%. Conclusions. Of all four scoring systems compared, the GBS demonstrated the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value for identifying a patient with a significant UGIB. Therefore, patients with a 0 score can be safely managed as an outpatient. Our results also suggest that performing a nasogastric lavage adds little to the diagnosis UGIB.

Clinical Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcome of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; a Narrative Review

Prediction of the outcome and severity of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has significant importance in patient care, disposition, and determining the need for emergent endoscopy. Recent international recommendations endorse using scoring systems for management of non-variceal UGIB patients. To date, different scoring systems have been developed for predicting the risk of 30-day mortality and re-bleeding. We have discussed the screening performance characteristics of Baylor bleeding score, the Rockall risk scoring score, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center predictive index, Glasgow Blatchford score, T-score, and AIMS65 systems, in the present review. Based on the results of this survey, there are only 3 clinical decision rules that can predict the outcome of UGIB patients, independent from endoscopy. Among these, only Glasgow Blatchford score was highly sensitive for predicting the risk of 30-day mortality and re-bleeding, simultaneously.

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.

A simplified clinical risk score predicts the need for early endoscopy in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Pre-endoscopic triage of patients who require an early upper endoscopy can improve management of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIMS

To validate a new simplified clinical score (T-score) to assess the need of an early upper endoscopy in non variceal bleeding patients. Secondary outcomes were re-bleeding rate, 30-day bleeding-related mortality.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre study patients with bleeding who underwent upper endoscopy were enrolled. The accuracy for high risk endoscopic stigmata of the T-score was compared with that of the Glasgow Blatchford risk score.

RESULTS

Overall, 602 patients underwent early upper endoscopy, and 472 presented with non-variceal bleeding. High risk endoscopic stigmata were detected in 145 (30.7%) cases. T-score sensitivity and specificity for high risk endoscopic stigmata and bleeding-related mortality was 96% and 30%, and 80% and 71%, respectively. No statistically difference in predicting high risk endoscopic stigmata between T-score and Glasgow Blatchford risk score was observed (ROC curve: 0.72 vs. 0.69, p=0.11). The two scores were also similar in predicting re-bleeding (ROC curve: 0.64 vs. 0.63, p=0.4) and 30-day bleeding-related mortality (ROC curve: 0.78 vs. 0.76, p=0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The T-score appeared to predict high risk endoscopic stigmata, re-bleeding and mortality with similar accuracy to Glasgow Blatchford risk score. Such a score may be helpful for the prediction of high-risk patients who need a very early therapeutic endoscopy.

A survey on mortality from non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Is the emergency referral system adequate?

BACKGROUND

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is an important cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Little information is available on the clinical management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Italy in relation to the current organization of the Italian Emergency Health Services into Level-I and Level-II Emergency Departments (ED), the latter being more complex structures with greater resources.

METHODS

A retrospective survey on clinical, endoscopic, and survival data was conducted by the regional sections of the 3 main Italian gastroenterological societies, AIGO, SIED and SIGE, recording all consecutive episodes of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding referred to 7 centres (4 of which were Level-II Emergency Departments) in Rome, Italy, during a one-year period. A total of 624 consecutive patients (64% males, mean age 67.6 ± 16.2 years) were included. Thirty-day mortality was 4.6%. Main factors associated with survival at both univariate and multivariate analysis were the presence of full Rockall score <5 and the admission to a Level-II Emergency Departments (p<0.001). Level-I Emergency Departments admitted patients with a full Rockall score ≥ 5 (p=0.02) more frequently than patients with negative endoscopic findings (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Referral of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients to Emergency Departments with more resources (Level-II) is associated with reduced mortality. Yet, unfortunately, high-risk patients were more often admitted to Level-I Emergency Departments, which suggests the need for a better organization of the emergency referral system.

Acute upper gastro-intestinal bleeding in morocco: what have changed?

Objective. In the present study, we aimed to investigate epidemiological, clinical, and etiological characteristics of acute upper gastro-intestinal bleeding. Materials and Methods. This retrospective study was conducted between January 2003 and December 2008. It concerned all cases of acute upper gastroduodenal bleeding benefited from an urgent gastro-intestinal endoscopy in our department in Morocco. Characteristics of patients were evaluated in terms of age, gender, medical history, presenting symptoms, results of rectal and clinical examinations, and endoscopy findings. Results. 1389 cases were registered. As 66% of the patients were male, 34% were female. Mean age was 49. 12% of patients had a history of previous hemorrhage, and 26% had a history of NSAID and aspirin use. Endoscopy was performed in 96%. The gastroduodenal ulcer was the main etiology in 38%, followed by gastritis and duodenitis in 32.5%. Conclusion. AUGIB is still a frequent pathology, threatening patients' life. NSAID and aspirin are still the major risk factors. Their impact due to peptic ulcer remains stable in our country.

Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: how urgent is it?

Early endoscopy has been advocated for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but the optimal timing for early endoscopy is still uncertain. The aim of this Review is to evaluate the optimal timing of early endoscopy by examining the findings of randomized clinical trials and retrospective cohort studies that used comparable outcome measures and have been reported in the literature. Outcome measurements included recurrent bleeding, surgery, mortality, length of hospital stay, and blood transfusion. Studies were categorized into those in which endoscopy was performed within 2-3 h, 6-8 h, 12 h or 24 h of the patient's presentation to hospital. We conclude that early endoscopy aids risk stratification of patients and reduces the need for hospitalization. However, it may also expose additional cases of active bleeding and hence increase the use of therapeutic endoscopy. No evidence exists that very early endoscopy (within a few hours of presentation) can reduce the risk of rebleeding or improve survival.