RESUMEN
Background: Several scoring systems have been designed for risk stratification and prediction of outcomes in upper GI bleed. Endoscopy plays a major role in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of UGIB patients. However not all patients with UGIB need endoscopy. The objective of the present study was compared the prediction of mortality using different scoring systems in patients with upper GI bleed. A decision tool with a high sensitivity would be able to identify high and low risk patients and for judicious utilization of available resources.Methods: 100 patients were assessed with respect to their clinical parameters, organ dysfunction, pertinent laboratory parameters and five risk assessment scores i.e. clinical Rockall, Glasgow Blatchford, ALBI, PALBI and AIMS65 were calculated.Results: For prediction of outcomes, AIMS65 was superior to the others (AUROC of 0.889), followed by the GBS (AUROC of 0.869), followed by clinical Rockall score (AUROC 0.815), followed by ALBI score (AUROC of 0.765), followed by PALBI score (AUROC of 0.714) all values being statistically significant.Conclusions: The AIMS65 score is best in predicting the mortality in patients with upper GI bleed. The optimum cut off being >2. Though GBS may be better in predicting the need for intervention, it is inferior in predicting the mortality. The newer scores like ALBI and PALBI are inferior to AIMS65 and GBS in predicting mortality.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency condition in the emergency department (ED). Patients with UGIB show a wide range of clinical severity, from mild bleeding to death. The objective of this study was to evaluate methods for risk stratification of active UGIB in the ED. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with UGIB who were admitted to the ED of a tertiary care, university-affiliated hospital center from January 2011 to December 2011. Our study subjects were patients over 20 years old who complained of symptoms and signs of gastrointestinal tract bleeding and underwent endoscopic gastroduodenoscopy (EGD) evaluation. However, patients diagnosed with variceal gastrointestinal bleeding, disseminated malignancy, coagulopathy, and lower gastrointestinal bleeding and patients who did not undergo EGD within 6 hours were excluded. The Blatchford score and the clinical Rockall score were calculated for the enrolled patients. In cases where the value of each score was greater than 0, the scores were considered high risk. Active UGIB was defined as a symptom of patients who underwent emergency endoscopic intervention such as ligation or sclerotherapy. We compared the proportions of patients identified as high risk using chi tests. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for detection of patients requiring emergency endoscopic intervention were calculated for both the Blatchford score and the clinical Rockall score. RESULTS: The numbers of patients with high risk according to the Blatchford score and the clinical Rockall were 220 (93.6%) and 192 (81.7%) of 235 patients, respectively. The number of patients with active UGIB was 96 (40.9%) of 235 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of risk stratification based on the Blatchford score was 100% (96/96) and 10.8% (15/139) (p=0.001), respectively, while those based on the clinical Rockall score were 80.2% (77/96) and 17.3% (24/139) (p>0.05). The AUROC curves of the Blatchford score and the clinical Rockall score were 0.617 (95% CI; 0.546-0.688) and 0.495 (95% CI; 0.420-0.571), respectively. CONCLUSION: The Blatchford score could be more useful as a risk stratification tool than the clinical Rockall score for active UGIB patients in the ED. The Blatchford score would be preferable as a clinical tool that can discriminate patients who need emergency endoscopic intervention for control of UGIB.