Inferior vena cava collapsibility index and stroke volume as predictors of blood transfusion in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study investigates the effectiveness of bedside ultrasonography in predicting blood transfusion requirements in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). It focuses on evaluating the inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter, IVC collapsibility index (CI), and stroke volume (SV) as ultrasonographic measures.

METHODS

A hundred adult patients enrolled in this prospective clinical study. The patients were divided into two groups (group 1: only saline administered group, group 2: saline and blood administered group). IVC diameter, IVC CI, and SV were measured at the time of admission and after treatment.

RESULTS

At the initial admission, group 1 exhibited an IVC CI of 20.4% and an SV of 65.0 mL, whereas group 2 displayed an IVC CI of 26.6% and an SV of 58.0 mL. Upon analyzing the relationship between the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and SV, we identified a significant negative correlation (r = -0.7350; P < 0.001). Similarly, a weak negative correlation was observed between the Rockall score (RS) and SV (r = -0.4718; P < 0.001). It is worth noting that patients with UGIB require blood transfusion if their SV falls below 62.5 mL, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 89.1% and a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 82.8% to 95.4%.

CONCLUSION

IVC CI and SV can be used as parameters to predict the need for blood transfusion in the ED in patients with UGIB.

The Accuracy of Pre-Endoscopic Scores for Mortality Prediction in Patients with Upper GI Bleeding and No Endoscopy Performed

(1) Background: The assessment of mortality and rebleeding rate in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is essential, and several prognostic scores have been proposed. Some patients with UGIB did not undergo endoscopy, either because they refused the procedure, suffered from alcohol withdrawal symptoms or altered general status, or because the bleeding was severe enough to cause death before the endoscopy. The mortality risk in the subgroup of patients without endoscopy is poorly evaluated in the literature. (2) Methods: The purpose of the study was to identify the most useful scores for the assessment of in-hospital mortality in patients with UGIB with no endoscopy performed and no known etiology. A total of 198 patients with UGIB and no endoscopy performed were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 and the accuracy of 12 prognostic scores and the Charlson comorbidity index for in-hospital mortality prediction were analyzed, as well as Child-Pugh Turcotte (CPT) and Meld scores in patients with cirrhosis. (3) Results: The mortality rate was 37.9%, higher than in variceal (21.9%, p < 0.0001) and non-variceal bleeding (7.4%, p < 0.0001). The most accurate scores by AUC were the International Bleeding score (INBS, 0.844), Glasgow Blatchford (0.783), MAP score (0.78), Iino (0.766), AIM65 and modified N-score (0.745 each), modified Glasgow-Blatchford (0.73), H3B2 and N-score (0.701); Rockall, Baylor, and T-score had an AUC below 0.7. MELD score was superior to CPT in patients with cirrhosis (AUC 0.811 versus 0.670). (4) Conclusions: The mortality rate in UGIB with no endoscopy was higher than in both variceal and non-variceal bleeding and was higher in the pandemic period but with no statistical significance (45.3% versus 32.14%, p = 0.0586), mainly because of positive cases. Only one case of rebleeding was noted; the hospitalization period was significantly shorter. The most accurate score was International Bleeding Score; the MELD score had a higher but moderate accuracy compared with CPT in patients with cirrhosis.

Predicting mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using machine-learning

Background

Non-endoscopic risk scores, Glasgow Blatchford (GBS) and admission Rockall (Rock), are limited by poor specificity. The aim of this study was to develop an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for the non-endoscopic triage of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), with mortality as a primary outcome.

Methods

Four machine learning algorithms, namely, Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA), logistic regression (LR), K-Nearest Neighbor (K-NN), were performed with GBS, Rock, Beylor Bleeding score (BBS), AIM65, and T-score.

Results

A total of 1,096 NVUGIB hospitalized in the Gastroenterology Department of the County Clinical Emergency Hospital of Craiova, Romania, randomly divided into training and testing groups, were included retrospectively in our study. The machine learning models were more accurate at identifying patients who met the endpoint of mortality than any of the existing risk scores. AIM65 was the most important score in the detection of whether a NVUGIB would die or not, whereas BBS had no influence on this. Also, the greater AIM65 and GBS, and the lower Rock and T-score, the higher mortality will be.

Conclusion

The best accuracy was obtained by the hyperparameter-tuned K-NN classifier (98%), giving the highest precision and recall on the training and testing datasets among all developed models, showing that machine learning can accurately predict mortality in patients with NVUGIB.

Analysis of the patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and comparison of Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford scores

BACKGROUND

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) has important morbidity and mortality. Predicting high-risk patients for mortality and rebleeding is necessary for a treatment plan. In the present study, we aimed to define the epidemiological and etiological characteristics of patients presenting with nonvariceal UGB and to observe mortality and morbidity rates. We also aimed to compare Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford scoring systems in predicting rebleeding and mortality.

METHODS

Subjects presenting with nonvariceal UGB over a 3-year period were included. Demographic characteristics, symptoms, and signs on physical examination, laboratory data, endoscopic signs and diagnosis, interventions during hospitalization and follow-up period were recorded. Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scores were calculated for every participant at the first day of the admission.

RESULTS

A total of 709 patients were enrolled in the study. A total of 490 of them (69.1%) were men. The mean age of the women and men was 60.7±1.2 and 58.6± 0.7 years, respectively. Melena was the most common presenting symptom. Duodenal ulcer (31%), gastric ulcer (20.7%), and erosive disease (17.6%) were the most common causes of bleeding. History of use of aspirin and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use were present in 63.7% of the subjects. All patients were followed up for 30th-day mortality. Overall, rebleeding and mortality rates were 11% and 7%, respectively. A Rockall score greater than 6 was the most important predictor of mortality (odds ratio:39.1) and rebleeding (odds ratio:4.7).

CONCLUSION

Nonvariceal UGB patients with a Rockall score greater than 6 should undergo aggressive endoscopic treatment and inpatient care.

Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS).

METHODS

Patients with UGIB between January and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for 30-day mortality and composite endpoints risk of complications and need for intervention using areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with UGIB on admission and in-hospital UGIB.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were identified (67.5% men, mean age 63.8 ± 14.9 years). In-hospital UGIB occurred in 49.6%. AUROCs for 30-day mortality, risk of complications, and need for intervention (not applicable to RS) were 0.684 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.606-0.763), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.594-0.735), and 0.694 (95% CI: 0.612-0.775) for C-WATCH score, 0.724 (95% CI: 0.653-0.796) and 0.751 (95% CI: 0.687-0.815) for RS, 0.652 (95% CI: 0.57-0.735), 0.653 (95% CI: 0.579-0.727), and 0.673 (95% CI: 0.602-0.745) for p-RS and 0.652 (95% CI: 0.572-0.732), 0.663 (95% CI: 0.592-0.734), and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.683-0.821) for GBS. RS outperformed pre-endoscopic scores in predicting risk of complications, while there were no significant differences between pre-endoscopic scores except GBS outperforming p-RS in predicting need for intervention. The subgroup analysis obtained similar results. Positive predictive values for patients with estimated low risk for all three endpoints (C-WATCH score ≤1, RS ≤2, p-RS <1, and GBS ≤1) were 89%, 69%, 78%, and 92%.

CONCLUSION

C-WATCH score performed similar to the established pre-endoscopic risk scores in patients with UGIB regarding relevant patient-related endpoints with no significant differences between both the subgroups.

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.

Comparison of the quick SOFA score with Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scores in predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the common causes of mortality and morbidity. The Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are frequently used in determining the prognosis and predicting in-hospital adverse events, such as mortality, re-bleeding, hospital stay, and blood transfusion requirements. The quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is easy and swift to calculate. The commonly used scores and the qSOFA score were compared and why and when these scores are most useful was investigated.

METHOD

133 patients admitted to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding over the period of a year, were evaluated in this retrospective study. The RS, GBS and qSOFA score were calculated for each patient, and their relationship with in-hospital adverse events, such as length of hospitalization, rebleeding, endoscopic treatment, blood transfusion requirements, and mortality, was investigated.

RESULTS

The mean overall GBS was 9.72 ± 3.72 (0-19), while that of patients who did not survive was 14.0 ± 1.1 (13-16), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.901, a cutoff value of 12.5, and specificity (Spe) and sensitivity (Sen) of 1 and 0.82, respectively. The median value of the GBS, in terms of transfusion need, was 7.12 ± 4.01 (0-15). (AUC = 0.752, cut-off = 9.5, Spe = 0.79, Sen = 0.69). The median value of the qSOFA score, in terms of intensive care need, was 1.73 ± 0.7 (0-3) (AUC = 0.921, cut-off = 0.5, Spe = 0.93, Sen = 0.79). The RS median, in terms of re-bleeding, was 8.22 ± 0.97 (6-9).

CONCLUSION

Early use of risk stratification scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding is important due to the high risk of morbidity and mortality. All scoring systems were effective in predicting mortality, the need for intensive care, and re-bleeding. The GBS had a greater predictive power in terms of mortality and transfusion need, the qSOFA score for intensive care need, and the RS for re-bleeding. The simpler, more efficient, and more easily calculated qSOFA score can be used to estimate the severity of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Prospective Comparison of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background/Aims

This study aimed to determine the performance of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and to compare the results between patients with nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) and those with variceal UGIB (VUGIB).

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study between March 2016 and December 2017. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed for all outcomes for comparison. The associations of all three scores with mortality were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Of the total of 337 patients with UGIB, 267 patients (79.2%) had NVUGIB. AIMS65 was significantly associated (odds ratio [OR], 1.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.148–2.620), RS was marginally associated (OR, 1.225; 95% CI, 0.973–1.543), but GBS was not associated (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890–1.163) with mortality risk in patients with UGIB. However, all three scores accurately predicted all other outcomes (all p<0.05) except rebleeding (p>0.05). Only AIMS65 precisely predicted mortality, the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint (all p<0.05) in patients with VUGIB.

Conclusions

AIMS65 is superior to GBS and RS in predicting mortality in patients with UGIB, and also precisely predicts the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. No scoring system could satisfactorily predict rebleeding in all patients with UGIB.

AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

Risk stratification for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (NVUGI) bleeding is crucial for successful prognosis and treatment. Recently, the AIMS65 score has been used to predict mortality risk and rebleeding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in Korea.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 512 patients with NVUGI bleeding who were treated at a university hospital between 2013 and 2016. The AIMS65, GBS, Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score were used to stratify patients based on their bleeding risk. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite clinical outcomes of mortality, rebleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Each scoring system was compared using the receiver-operating curve (ROC).

Results

A total of 17 patients (3.3%) died and rebleeding developed in 65 patients (12.7%). Eighty-six patients (16.8%) required ICU admission. The AIMS65 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.88)) seemed to be superior to the GBS (AUC 0.72, 0.68–0.76), the Rockall score (AUC 0.75, 0.71–0.79), or the pre-endoscopic Rockall score (AUC 0.74, 0.70–0.78) in predicting in-hospital mortality, but there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.07). The AUC value of the AIMS65 was not significantly different from the other scoring systems in prediction of rebleeding, endoscopic intervention, or ICU admission.

Conclusions

The AIMS65 score in NVUGI bleeding patients was comparable to the GBS or Rockall scoring systems when predicting the mortality, rebleeding, or ICU admission. Because AIMS65 is a much easier, readily calculated scoring system compared to the others, we would recommend using the AIMS65 in daily practice.

The recurrent bleeding risk of a Forrest IIc lesion at the second-look endoscopy can be indicated by high Rockall scores ≥ 6

Background

The Forrest classification is widely applied to guide endoscopic hemostasis for peptic ulcer bleeding. Accordingly, practice guidelines suggest medical treatment only for ulcer with a Forrest IIc lesion because it has low rebleeding risk even without endoscopic therapy, ranging from 0 to 13%. However, the risk ranges widely and it is unclear who is at risk of rebleeding with such a lesion. This study assessed whether the Rockall score, which evaluates patients holistically, could indicate the risk of recurrent bleeding among patients with a Forrest IIc lesion at the second-look endoscopy.

Methods

Patients who had peptic ulcer bleeding with Ia-IIb lesions received endoscopic hemostasis at the primary endoscopy, and they were enrolled if their Ia-IIb lesions had been fading to IIc at the second-look endoscopy after 48- to 72-h intravenous proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion. Primary outcomes were rebleeding during the 4th–14th day and 4^th–28th day after the first bleeding episode.

Results

The prospective cohort study enrolled 140 patients, who were divided into a Rockall scores ≥ 6 group or a Rockall scores < 6 group. The rebleeding rates in the Rockall scores ≥ 6 group and the Rockall scores < 6 group during the 4th–14th day and the 4th–28th day were 13/70 (18.6%) versus 2/70 (2.9%), p = 0.003 and 17/70 (24.3%) versus 3/70 (4.3%), p = 0.001, respectively, based on an intention-to-treat analysis and 5/62 (8.1%) versus 0/68 (0%), p = 0.023 and 6/59 (10.2%) versus 0/67 (0%), p = 0.009, respectively, based on a per-protocol analysis. The Kaplan–Meier curves showed that the Rockall scores ≥ 6 group had a significantly lower cumulative rebleeding-free proportion than the Rockall scores < 6 group (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Combined Rockall scores ≥ 6 on arrival with a Forrest IIc lesion at the second-look endoscopy can identify patients at risk of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding following initial endoscopic and intravenous PPI treatment.

Trial registration Trial registration identifier: NCT01591083

Quick SOFA vs Rockall preendoscopy scores for risk assessment in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Several scoring systems are used to evaluate the severity of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGB) and the risk of rebleeding or death. The most commonly used scoring systems include the Rockall score, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and Forrest classification. However, the use of simpler definitions, such as the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, to make a clinical decision is reasonable in areas with limited time and/or material resources and in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods

Patients with NVUGB whose medical records included information required to calculate the qSOFA and Rockall preendoscopy scores at the time of bleeding in the emergency department or another non-intensive care unit department were included in the study. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated for the ability of the qSOFA and Rockall preendoscopy scores to predict mortality.

Results

The qSOFA and Rockall preendoscopic scores at the time of bleeding confirmation could be calculated for 218 patients. The mortality rate increased from 3.4% in patients with a qSOFA score = 0 to 88.9% in patients with a qSOFA score = 3 (P < 0.001). The AUROC for prediction of mortality was 0.836 (95% CI 0.748–0.924) for the qSOFA score and 0.923 (95% CI 0.884–0.981) for the Rockall preendocopy score (P = 0.059).

Conclusions

An increase in the qSOFA score is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with NVUGB. The simple qSOFA score can be used to predict mortality in patients with NVUGB as an alternative when Rockall preendoscopy score is incomplete for which the comorbidity is unknown.

Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in predicting the risk of in-hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Nanjing, China

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the performance of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) in predicting the death risk among emergency-hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in regional China.

METHODS

A retrospective study was implemented between January 2014 and December 2015. Eligible participants were those who were hospitalized with UGIB. The outcome variable was in-hospital death, while explanatory variables were AIMS65, GBS and RS scores. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated to assess the association of AIMS65, GBS and RS with death risk using multivariate logistic regression models. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of three scoring systems were computed to compare their predictive power.

RESULTS

Among 799 UGIB participants, 674 were non-variceal bleeding (NVUGIB) and 125 variceal bleeding (VUGIB) patients. AIMS65 (OR = 14.72, 95% CI = 6.48, 33.43) and RS (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.20, 2.13) were positively associated with the risk of in-hospital death. Moreover, AIMS65 (AUC = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84, 0.98) performed the best in predicting in-hospital death, followed by RS (AUC = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.86) and GBS (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59, 0.83) among overall UGIB participants. AIMS65 was also the best indicator to predict in-hospital death among either NVUGIB participants (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80, 0.98) or VUGIB participants (AUC = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89, 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

AIMS65, GBS and RS scoring approaches were all acceptable for predicting in-hospital death among UGIB patients irrespective of the subtype of UGIB in China. The AIMS65 might be the most powerful predictor.

Validity of the Pre-endoscopic Scoring Systems for the Prediction of the Failure of Endoscopic Hemostasis in Bleeding Gastroduodenal Peptic Ulcers

Objective Although several pre-endoscopic scoring systems have been used to predict the mortality or the need for intervention for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, their usefulness to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers has not yet been fully investigated. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), the clinical Rockall score (CRS), and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 226 consecutive emergency endoscopic cases with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers between April 2010 and September 2016. The study outcome was the failure of first endoscopic hemostasis. The GBS, CRS, and AIMS65 scores were assessed for their ability to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis using a receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results Eight cases (3.5%) failed to achieve first endoscopic hemostasis. Surgery was required in six cases, and interventional radiology was required in two cases. The GBS was superior to both the CRS and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis [area under the curve, 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.90), 0.65 (0.56-0.74) and 0.75 (0.56-0.95), respectively]. No failure of endoscopic hemostasis was noted in cases in which the patient scored less than GBS 10 and CRS 2. Conclusion The GBS was the most useful scoring system for the prediction of failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. The GBS was also useful in identifying the patients who did not require surgery or interventional radiology.

Rockall Score Larger Than 7 as a Reliable Criterion for the Selection of Indications for Preventive Transarterial Embolization in a Subgroup of High-Risk Elderly Patients After Primary Endoscopic Hemostasis for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background

Transarterial embolization (TAE) is an alternative procedure to repeat endoscopy or surgical intervention in the case of re-bleeding after primary endoscopic treatment. The aim of the study was to assess the Rockall score as a criterion for TAE in the case of re-bleeding after endoscopic treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).

Methods

Out of the 673 patients who underwent emergent endoscopic hemostasis due to NVUGIB, 111 had a high risk of re-bleeding having a Forrest I-IIb ulcer and the Rockall score ≥ 5. From 111 patients, 37 accepted preventive TAE (PE+ group). The control group consisted of 74 patients who underwent standard treatment (PE- group).

Results

There were no differences in the demographic status between both groups, nor in the main clinical data on admission. The performance of TAE resulted in a significantly lower re-bleeding rate (1 (4.8%) vs. 11 (33%), P = 0.018). No patient who underwent TAE with the Rockall score ≥ 7 required surgery, resulting in only one re-bleeding episode (P = 0.004). Mortality reached 5% and 11% in the PE+ and PE- groups accordingly.

Conclusion

The Rockall score ≥ 7 could be a reliable predictor of re-bleeding after primary endoscopic hemostasis as one criterion for the selection of indications for preventive TAE.

Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use?

AIM

To compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS) and Baylor bleeding score (BBS) in predicting clinical outcomes and need for interventions in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2013, 1012 consecutive patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) were prospectively followed. The pre-endoscopic RS, BBS and GBS, as well as the post-endoscopic diagnostic scores (RS and BBS) were calculated for all patients according to their urgent upper endoscopy findings. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics (AUROC) curves were calculated for the prediction of lethal outcome, rebleeding, needs for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention, and the optimal cutoff values were evaluated.

RESULTS

PUB accounted for 41.9% of all upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, 5.2% patients died and 5.4% patients underwent surgery. By comparing the AUROC curves of the aforementioned pre-endoscopic scores, the RS best predicted lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.67 vs 0.63, respectively), but the GBS best predicted need for hospital-based intervention or 30-d mortality (AUROC 0.84 vs 0.57 vs 0.64), rebleeding (AUROC 0.75 vs 0.61 vs 0.53), need for blood transfusion (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.63 vs 0.58) and surgical intervention (0.82 vs 0.63 vs 0.52) The post-endoscopic RS was also better than the post-endoscopic BBS in predicting lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.69, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The RS is the best predictor of mortality and the GBS is the best predictor of rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention in patients with PUB. There is no one 'perfect score' and we suggest that these two tests be used concomitantly.

Comparison of AIMS65 Score and Other Scoring Systems for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Koreans with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background/Aims

The AIMS65 score has not been sufficiently validated in Korea. The objective of this study was to compare the AIMS65 and other scoring systems for the prediction of various clinical outcomes in Korean patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).

Methods

The AIMS65 score, clinical and full Rockall scores (cRS and fRS) and Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) score were calculated in patients with NVUGIB in a single center retrospectively. The performance of these scores for predicting mortality, rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and endoscopic intervention was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve.

Results

Of the 523 patients, 3.4% died within 30 days, 2.5% experienced rebleeding, 40.0% required endoscopic intervention, and 75.7% needed transfusion. The AIMS65 score was useful for predicting the 30-day mortality, the need for endoscopic intervention and for transfusion. The fRS was superior to the AIMS65, GBS, and cRS for predicting endoscopic intervention and the GBS was superior to the AIMS65, fRS, and cRS for predicting the transfusion requirement.

Conclusions

The AIMS65 score was useful for predicting the 30-day mortality, transfusion requirement, and endoscopic intervention in Korean patients with acute NVUGIB. However, it was inferior to the GBS and fRS for predicting the transfusion requirement and endoscopic intervention, respectively.

Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with End Stage Renal Disease: Causes, Characteristics and Factors Associated with Need for Endoscopic Therapeutic Intervention

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is increased among the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. The aim of the current study was to describe the causes and characteristics of UGIB in ESRD patients at our center and to assess the need for endoscopic therapeutic intervention (ETI) using Rockall (RS) and Glasgow Blatchford scores (GBS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients with ESRD and UGIB with age ≥14 years were included. Frequencies and percentages were computed for categorical variables. Chi square test or Fischer's exact test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 59 subjects had a mean age of 47.25 ± 15 years.The most common endoscopic findings seen were erosions in 33 (55.9%) patients, followed by ulcers in 18 (30.3%) patients. ETI was required in 33 (55.9%) patients, which included adrenaline injection in 19 (32.3%), hemoclip in 9 (15.2%) and argon plasma coagulation in 5 (8.4%) patients. Factors associated with the need of ETI were identified as: a combined presentation of hematemesis and melena (P=0.033), ulcer (P=0.002) and associated chronic liver disease (P=0.015). Six (10.1%) patients died. Death was more common if ETI was not performed (P=0.018).

CONCLUSION

ETI was more commonly required in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with UGIB, who had presence of combined hematemesis and melena, ulcers and associated chronic liver disease. A Glasgow Blatchford score of >14 was helpful in assessing the need for ETI in these patients.

External validation of scoring systems in risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM

The aim of this study was to externally validate the four commonly used scoring systems in the risk stratification of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB).

METHODS

Patients of UGIB who underwent endoscopy within 24 h of presentation were stratified prospectively using the pre-endoscopy Rockall score (PRS) >0, complete Rockall score (CRS) >2, Glasgow Blatchford bleeding scores (GBS) >3, and modified GBS (m-GBS) >3 scores. Patients were followed up to 30 days. Prognostic accuracy of the scores was done by comparing areas under curve (AUC) in terms of overall risk stratification, re-bleeding, mortality, need for intervention, and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-five patients were studied. All four scores performed better in the overall risk stratification on AUC [PRS = 0.566 (CI: 0.481-0.651; p-0.043)/CRS = 0.712 (CI: 0.634-0.790); p<0.001)/GBS = 0.810 (CI: 0.744-0.877; p->0.001); m-GBS = 0.802 (CI: 0.734-0.871; p<0.001)], whereas only CRS achieved significance in identifying re-bleed [AUC-0.679 (CI: 0.579-0.780; p = 0.003)]. All the scoring systems except PRS were found to be significantly better in detecting 30-day mortality with a high AUC (CRS = 0.798; p-0.042)/GBS = 0.833; p-0.023); m-GBS = 0.816; p-0.031). All four scores demonstrated significant accuracy in the risk stratification of non-variceal patients; however, only GBS and m-GBS were significant in variceal etiology. Higher cutoff scores achieved better sensitivity/specificity [RS > 0 (50/60.8), CRS > 1 (87.5/50.6), GBS > 7 (88.5/63.3), m-GBS > 7(82.3/72.6)] in the risk stratification.

CONCLUSION

GBS and m-GBS appear to be more valid in risk stratification of UGIB patients in this region. Higher cutoff values achieved better predictive accuracy.

Hypoalbuminemia in the outcome of patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

The role of serum albumin level in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGB) has not been extensively studied. Our aim was to evaluate the role of serum albumin on admission in terms of in-hospital mortality in patients with NVUGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients admitted with NVUGB during a 4-year period were prospectively included. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. ROC curve analysis was used to determine the cutoff value for serum albumin on admission that made a distinction between deceased patients and survivors with respect to serum albumin on admission, as well as its overall performance compared with the Rockall score.

RESULTS

185 patients with NVUGB were evaluated. Men predominated (56.7%) and a mean age of 59.1±19.9 years was found. Mean serum albumin on admission was 2.9±0.9g/dl with hypoalbuminemia (< 3.5g/dl) detected on admission in 71.4% of cases. The ROC curve found that the best value for predicting hospital mortality was an albumin level of 3.1g/dl (AUROC 0.738). Mortality in patients with albumin ≥ 3.2g/dl was 1.2% compared with 11.2% in patients with albumin<3.2g/dl (P=.009; OR 9.7, 95%CI 1.2-76.5). There was no difference in overall performance between the albumin level (AUORC 0.738) and the Rockall score (AUROC 0.715) for identifying mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with hypoalbuminemia presenting with NVUGB have a greater in-hospital mortality rate. The serum albumin level and the Rockall score perform equally in regard to identifying the mortality rate.

Prospective comparison of three risk scoring systems in non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Data regarding the efficacy of the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), full Rockall score (FRS) and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores (PRS) in comparing non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are limited. Our aim was to determine the performance of these three risk scores in predicting the need for treatment, mortality, and re-bleeding among patients with non-variceal and variceal UGIB.

METHODS

During January, 2010 and September, 2011, patients with UGIB from 11 hospitals were prospectively enrolled. The GBS, FRS, and PRS were calculated. Discriminative ability for each score was assessed using the receiver operated characteristics curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 981 patients presented with acute UGIB, 225 patients (22.9%) had variceal UGIB. The areas under the ROC (AUC) of the GBS, FRS, and PRS for predicting the need for treatment were 0.77, 0.69, and 0.61 in non-variceal versus 0.66, 0.66, and 0.59 in variceal UGIB. The AUC for predicting mortality and re-bleeding during admission were 0.66, 0.80, and 0.76 in non-variceal versus 0.63, 0.57, and 0.63 in variceal UGIB. AUC score was not statistically significant for predicting need for therapy and clinical outcome in variceal UGIB. The GBS ≤ 2 and FRS ≤ 1 identified low-risk non-variceal UGIB patients for death and re-bleeding during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to non-variceal UGIB, the GBS, FRS, and PRS were not precise scores for assessing the need for therapy, mortality, and re-bleeding during admission in variceal UGIB.

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.

Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

In the intensive care unit, vigilance is needed to manage nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. A focused history and physical examination must be completed to identify inciting factors and the need for hemodynamic stabilization. Although not universally used, risk stratification tools such as the Blatchford and Rockall scores can facilitate triage and management. Urgent evaluation for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeds requires prompt respiratory assessment, and identification of hemodynamic instability with fluid resuscitation and blood transfusions if necessary. Future studies are needed to evaluate the indication, safety, and efficacy of emerging endoscopic techniques.

Diagnostic and therapeutic value of emergency endoscopy in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients with high-risk Rockall score

AIM: To investigate the diagnostic and therapeutic effect of emergency endoscopy in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) patients with a high-risk Rockall score.

METHODS: The clinical data for 55 high-risk patients with NVUGIB treated at Department of Gastroenterology of Shanxi Coal Center Hospital from August 2011 to December 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these patients, 30 who underwent endoscopy in 24-48 h were allocated to the emergency endoscopy group, and 25 who underwent endoscopy after 48 h were allocated to the control group. Data including age, sex, bleeding history, chronic disorder history, time from bleeding to endoscopic examination, blood transfusion, shock index, hemoglobin, length of hospital stay, expenses, Rockall score, etiology diagnosis rate, length of hospital stay, and mortality were compared between the two groups to find the variables with a significant difference.

RESULTS: The two groups had no significant differences in etiology (P > 0.05). There were statistical differences between the two groups in etiology diagnosis rate (93.33% vs 56.00%, P = 0.001 < 0.01), hospitalization time (10.0 d ± 6.7 d vs 16.4 d ± 7.3 d, P < 0.05), and cost of hospitalization (13034.4 yuan ± 9967.2 yuan vs 14110.2 yuan ± 9780.8 yuan, P < 0.05). The two groups had no significant differences in mortality rate (6.67 vs 12.00%, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Emergency endoscopy is a reliable and safe modality for NVUGIB patients with a high-risk Rockall score.

Risk assessment scores for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and their use in clinical practice

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common cause for emergency admission to hospital representing a significant clinical as well as economic burden. UGIB encompasses a wide range of severities from life-threatening exsanguination to minor bleeding that may not require hospital admission. Patients with UGIB are often initially assessed and managed by junior doctors and non-gastroenterologists. Several risk scores have been created for the assessment of these patients, some requiring endoscopic data for calculation and others that are calculable from clinical data alone. A key question in clinical practice is how to accurately identify patients with UGIB at high risk of adverse outcome. Patients considered high risk are more likely to experience adverse outcomes and will require urgent intervention. In contrast, those patients with UGIB who are considered to be low risk could potentially be managed on an outpatient basis. The Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) appears best at identifying patients at low risk of requiring intervention or death and therefore may be best for use in clinical practice, allowing outpatient management in low risk cases. There has been some debate as to the optimal GBS cut-off score for safely identifying this low-risk group. Many guidelines suggest that patients with a GBS of zero can be safely managed as outpatients, but more recent studies have suggested that this threshold could potentially be safely increased to ≤1. Most other patients require inpatient endoscopy within 24 h and the full Rockall score remains important for risk assessment following endoscopy, particularly as it includes the endoscopic diagnosis. A minority of patients will require emergency endoscopy following resuscitation, but at present there is no evidence that risk scores can accurately identify this very high-risk group. Studies have shown the latest risk assessment score, the AIMS65, looks promising in the prediction of mortality. However, to date there is no data on the use of the AIMS65 in identifying low risk patients for possible outpatient management.

Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and Rockall score in a European series of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: performance when predicting in-hospital and delayed mortality

OBJECTIVE

AIMS65 is a score designed to predict in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs of gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aims were to revalidate AIMS65 as predictor of inpatient mortality and to compare AIMS65's performance with that of Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) with regard to mortality, and the secondary outcomes of a composite endpoint of severity, transfusion requirements, rebleeding, delayed (6-month) mortality, and length of stay.

METHODS

The study included 309 patients. Clinical and biochemical data, transfusion requirements, endoscopic, surgical, or radiological treatments, and outcomes for 6 months after admission were collected. Clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, delayed mortality, rebleeding, composite endpoint, blood transfusions, and length of stay.

RESULTS

In receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses, AIMS65, GBS, and RS were similar when predicting inpatient mortality (0.76 vs. 0.78 vs. 0.78). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AIMS65 and GBS were identical (0.62 vs. 0.62). AIMS65 was useless when predicting rebleeding compared to GBS or RS (0.56 vs. 0.70 vs. 0.71). GBS was better at predicting the need for transfusions. No patient with AIMS65 = 0, GBS ≤ 6, or RS ≤ 4 died. Considering the composite endpoint, an AIMS65 of 0 did not exclude high risk patients, but a GBS ≤ 1 or RS ≤ 2 did. The three scores were similar in predicting prolonged in-hospital stay. Delayed mortality was better predicted by AIMS65.

CONCLUSION

AIMS65 is comparable to GBS and RS in essential endpoints such as inpatient mortality, the need for endoscopic intervention and length of stay. GBS is a better score predicting rebleeding and the need for transfusion, but AIMS65 shows a better performance predicting delayed mortality.

Predictive Role of Admission Lactate Level in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

The predictive role of lactate in critically ill patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains to be elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess the value of lactate level on admission to predict in-hospital death in patients with UGIB admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The secondary objective was to assess whether lactate level adds predictive value to the clinical Rockall score in these patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that included 133 patients with acute UGIB admitted to the ICU. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and presence of UGIB on admission to the ICU.

RESULTS

Mean age was 55.4 years old and 64.7% were male. The most common cause of gastrointestinal bleeding was peptic ulcer disease, followed by erosive esophagitis/gastritis. The in-hospital mortality was 22.6%. Median lactate level in survivors and nonsurvivors was 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.2-4.2 mmol/L) and 8.8 (IQR 3.4-13.3 mmol/L; p < 0.01), respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area to predict in-hospital death for clinical Rockall score and lactate level (0.82) was significantly higher than the ROC area for the clinical Rockall score alone (0.69) (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted to the ICU with acute UGIB, lactate level on admission has a high sensitivity but low specificity for predicting in-hospital death. Lactate level adds to the predictive value of the clinical Rockall score. Given its high sensitivity, lactate level can be used in addition to other prediction tools to predict outcomes in patients with UGIB.

Rockall score in predicting outcomes of elderly patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM: To validate the clinical Rockall score in predicting outcomes (rebleeding, surgery and mortality) in elderly patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB).

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken in 341 patients admitted to the emergency room and Intensive Care Unit of Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The Rockall scores were calculated, and the association between clinical Rockall scores and patient outcomes (rebleeding, surgery and mortality) was assessed. Based on the Rockall scores, patients were divided into three risk categories: low risk ≤ 3, moderate risk 3-4, high risk ≥ 4, and the percentages of rebleeding/death/surgery in each risk category were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated to assess the validity of the Rockall system in predicting rebleeding, surgery and mortality of patients with AUGIB.

RESULTS: A positive linear correlation between clinical Rockall scores and patient outcomes in terms of rebleeding, surgery and mortality was observed (r = 0.962, 0.955 and 0.946, respectively, P = 0.001). High clinical Rockall scores > 3 were associated with adverse outcomes (rebleeding, surgery and death). There was a significant correlation between high Rockall scores and the occurrence of rebleeding, surgery and mortality in the entire patient population (χ² = 49.29, 23.10 and 27.64, respectively, P = 0.001). For rebleeding, the area under the ROC curve was 0.788 (95%CI: 0.726-0.849, P = 0.001); For surgery, the area under the ROC curve was 0.752 (95%CI: 0.679-0.825, P = 0.001) and for mortality, the area under the ROC curve was 0.787 (95%CI: 0.716-0.859, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION: The Rockall score is clinically useful, rapid and accurate in predicting rebleeding, surgery and mortality outcomes in elderly patients with AUGIB.