The Shock Index is not accurate at predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a major cause of hospital admission worldwide. The recent UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) report on severe gastrointestinal bleeding used the Shock Index to assess bleeding severity and found an association between Shock Index and mortality. However, this has never been prospectively validated as a predictor of outcome in UGIB. AIMS: To compare the Shock Index with existing pre-endoscopic UGIB risk scores in predicting outcomes after UGIB METHODS: In an international, prospective study of 3012 consecutive patients with UGIB, we compared the Shock Index with existing scores including the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), admission Rockall score, AIMS65, and the newly described "ABC" score. Pre-determined endpoints were need for major (≥4 units red cells) transfusion, need for endoscopic therapy and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The Shock Index was inferior to the GBS in predicting need for major transfusion (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.655 vs 0.836, P < 0.001) and need for endotherapy (AUROC 0.606 vs 0.747, P < 0.001). The Shock Index was inferior to all other scores for 30-day mortality: for example, AUROC 0.611 vs 0.863 for ABC score (P < 0.001). Adding the Shock Index to the ABC score did not improve accuracy of the ABC score in predicting mortality (AUROC 0.864 vs 0.863, P = 0.95). CONCLUSION: The Shock Index performed poorly with AUROCs <0.66 and was inferior to existing pre-endoscopy scores at predicting major clinical endpoints after UGIB. We found no clear evidence that the Shock Index is clinically useful at predicting outcomes in UGIB. [Correction added on 20 December 2019, after first online publication: Summary section has been changed for clarification.].

STOP-Colitis pilot trial protocol: a prospective, open-label, randomised pilot study to assess two possible routes of faecal microbiota transplant delivery in patients with ulcerative colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Imbalance of the gut microbiome is key to the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis (UC). Faecal microbiota transplant (FMT) is the transfer of homogenised and filtered faeces from a healthy individual to the gastrointestinal tract of a patient with disease. Published datasets show a positive signal for the use of FMT to treat UC, but the optimal route and dose of FMT remain unanswered. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, multi-centre open-label, randomised pilot study will assess two possible routes of FMT delivery, via the nasogastric (NG) route or by delivery to the COLON, in 30 patients with active UC recruited from three sites in the UK. Stool will be collected from healthy screened donors, processed, frozen and stored under a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) "specials" manufacturing licence held at the University of Birmingham Microbiome Treatment Centre. Thawed FMT samples will be administered to patients either via eight nasogastric infusions given initially over 4 days starting on the day of randomisation, and then again for 4 days in week 4 for foregut delivery (total of 240 g of stool) or via one colonoscopic infusion followed by seven weekly enemas according to the hindgut protocol (total of 360 g of stool). Patients will be followed up weekly for 8 weeks, and then at 12 weeks. The aims of this pilot study are (1) to determine which FMT administration route (NG or COLON) should be investigated in a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and (2) to determine if a full randomised controlled trial is feasible. The primary outcome will be a composite assessment of both qualitative and quantitative data based on efficacy (clinical response), acceptability and safety. At the end of the pilot study, decisions will be made regarding the feasibility of a full randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and, if deemed feasible, which route of administration should be used in such a study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the East Midlands-Nottingham Research Ethics Committee (REC 17/EM/0274). At the end of the study, findings will be reported at national and international gastroenterology meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN74072945.