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.

Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Age, blood tests and comorbidities and AIMS65 risk scores outperform Glasgow-Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a life-threatening condition with high mortality rates. AIM: To compare the performance of pre-endoscopic risk scores in predicting the following primary outcomes: In-hospital mortality, intervention (endoscopic or surgical) and length of admission (≥ 7 d). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 363 patients presenting with upper GI bleeding from December 2020 to January 2021. We calculated and compared the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) of Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PERS), albumin, international normalized ratio, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure, age older than 65 (AIMS65) and age, blood tests and comorbidities (ABC), including their optimal cut-off in variceal and non-variceal upper GI bleeding cohorts. We subsequently analyzed through a logistic binary regression model, if addition of lactate increased the score performance. RESULTS: All scores had discriminative ability in predicting in-hospital mortality irrespective of study group. AIMS65 score had the best performance in the variceal bleeding group (AUROC = 0.772; P < 0.001), and ABC score (AUROC = 0.775; P < 0.001) in the non-variceal bleeding group. However, ABC score, at a cut-off value of 5.5, was the best predictor (AUROC = 0.770, P = 0.001) of in-hospital mortality in both populations. PERS score was a good predictor for endoscopic treatment (AUC = 0.604; P = 0.046) in the variceal population, while GBS score, (AUROC = 0.722; P = 0.024), outperformed the other scores in predicting surgical intervention. Addition of lactate to AIMS65 score, increases by 5-fold the probability of in-hospital mortality (P < 0.05) and by 12-fold if added to GBS score (P < 0.003). No score proved to be a good predictor for length of admission. CONCLUSION: ABC score is the most accurate in predicting in-hospital mortality in both mixed and non-variceal bleeding population. PERS and GBS should be used to determine need for endoscopic and surgical intervention, respectively. Lactate can be used as an additional tool to risk scores for predicting in-hospital mortality.

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.

Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB. AREA COVERED: A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making. EXPERT OPINION: The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.

Risk analysis of 30-day rebleeding in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: This study aimed to compare the prognostic value of ABC, Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall and AIMS65 scoring systems in predicting rebleeding rate within 30 days after endoscopic treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 93 patients with ANVUGIB were selected as the study subjects and they were divided into groups according to whether there was rebleeding in the 30 days' follow-up period. 7 patients with rebleeding within 30 days were included in the rebleeding group, and the other 86 patients without rebleeding were included in the non-rebleeding group. RESULTS: By drawing ROC curve, we found that ABC scoring system had the highest accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65]) in predicting rebleeding within 30 days compared with the AIMS65 (0.56; P < 0.001), RS (0.51; P < 0.001), and GBS (0.61; P < 0.001). ABC scoring system showed the highest risk of rebleeding in 30 days. When the 4 scoring standards were judged as medium-high risk patients, the efficacy of the ABC scoring system in predicting the risk of rebleeding at 30 days for ANVUGIB was found to be the best in diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive evaluation showed that ABC score had the highest prediction accuracy. The negative differential significance of each evaluation method was great, that is, the risk of rebleeding was generally low when judged as low risk patients, while the value of predicting rebleeding was limited when judged as medium and high risk patients.

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.

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.

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.

A Novel Prediction Tool for Endoscopic Intervention in Patients with Acute Upper Gastro-Intestinal Bleeding.

(1) Background: Predicting which patients with upper gastro-intestinal bleeding (UGIB) will receive intervention during urgent endoscopy can allow for better triaging and resource utilization but remains sub-optimal. Using machine learning modelling we aimed to devise an improved endoscopic intervention predicting tool. (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with UGIB between 2012−2018 who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) during hospitalization. We assessed the correlation between various parameters with endoscopic intervention and examined the prediction performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and the pre-endoscopic Rockall score for endoscopic intervention. We also trained and tested a new machine learning-based model for the prediction of endoscopic intervention. (3) Results: A total of 883 patients were included. Risk factors for endoscopic intervention included cirrhosis (9.0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), syncope at presentation (19.3% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.01), early EGD (6.8 h vs. 17.0 h, p < 0.01), pre-endoscopic administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) (43.4% vs. 31.0%, p < 0.01) and erythromycin (17.2% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.01). Higher GBS (11 vs. 9, p < 0.01) and pre-endoscopy Rockall score (4.7 vs. 4.1, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with endoscopic intervention; however, the predictive performance of the scores was low (AUC of 0.54, and 0.56, respectively). A combined machine learning-developed model demonstrated improved predictive ability (AUC 0.68) using parameters not included in standard GBS. (4) Conclusions: The GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall score performed poorly in endoscopic intervention prediction. An improved predictive tool has been proposed here. Further studies are needed to examine if predicting this important triaging decision can be further optimized.

The effect of the shock index and scoring systems for predicting mortality among geriatric patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective cohort study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an important cause of mortality and morbidity among geriatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the shock index and other scoring systems are effective predictors of mortality and prognosis among geriatric patients presenting to the emergency department with complaints of upper GI bleeding. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study in an emergency department in Bursa, Turkey. METHODS: Patients over 65 years admitted to a single-center, tertiary emergency service between May 8, 2019, and April 30, 2020, and diagnosed with upper GI bleeding were analyzed. 30, 180 and 360-day mortality prediction performances of the shock index and the Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS-65 scores were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients who met the criteria were included in the study. The shock index (P < 0.001) and AIMS-65 score (P < 0.05) of the patients who died within the 30-day period were found to be significantly different, while the shock index (P < 0.001), Rockall score (P < 0.001) and AIMS-65 score (P < 0.05) of patients who died within the 180-day and 360-day periods were statistically different. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for predicting 360-day mortality, the area under the curve (AUC) value was found to be 0.988 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.971-1.000; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The shock index measured among geriatric patients with upper GI bleeding at admission seems to be a more effective predictor of prognosis than other scoring systems.

Comparison of risk scoring systems for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients after renal transplantation: a retrospective observational study in Hunan, China.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common complication in renal transplant recipients. However, the risk stratification value of bleeding scoring systems in these patients is unclear, and data regarding risk factors are limited. METHODS: Clinical data of renal transplant recipients in The Third Xiangya hospital were collected. The predictive ability of Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), pre-endoscopy Rockall score (pRS), and AIMS65 score were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Risk factors of UGIB were analyzed using binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were enrolled, of which 55 with UGIB. Endoscopy improved the overall survival rate of patients. Glasgow Blatchford score (AUROC 0.868) performed best at predicting UGIB patients who need intervention or death, with a threshold of 10, sensitivity and specificity were 82.4% and 70%, respectively. In terms of predicting mortality, the GBS score was comparable with AIMS65 score (p = 0.30) and pRS score (p = 0.42). Viral hepatitis, intravenous hormone usage, low platelet count, and low albumin level were significant factors associated with UGIB. CONCLUSIONS: The Glasgow Blatchford score (AUROC 0.868) was best at predicting the need for intervention or death. However, their ability to predict mortality was limited, with AUROC less than 0.8. Our study also identified four independent risk factors for renal transplant recipients with UGIB.

Prediction of in-hospital mortality after acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: cross-validation of several risk scoring systems.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic features associated with in-hospital mortality after acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB), focusing on cross-validation of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), full Rockall score (RS), and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index (CSMCPI) scoring systems. METHODS: Our prospective cross-sectional study included 156 patients with AUGIB. Several statistical approaches were used to assess the predictive accuracy of the scoring systems. RESULTS: All three scoring systems were able to accurately predict in-hospital mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] > 0.9); however, the multiple logistic model separated the presence of hemodynamic instability (state of shock) and the CSMCPI as the only significant predictive risk factors. In compliance with the overall results, the CSMCPI was consistently found to be superior to the other two systems (highest AUC, highest sensitivity and specificity, highest positive and negative predictive values, highest positive likelihood ratio, lowest negative likelihood ratio, and 1-unit increase in CSMCPI associated with 6.3 times higher odds of mortality), outperforming the GBS and full RS. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest consideration of the CSMCPI as a readily available and reliable tool for accurately predicting in-hospital mortality after AUGIB, thus providing an essential backbone in clinical decision-making.

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.

Perfusion index: Could this be a new triage tool for upper gastrointestinal system bleeding in the emergency department? A prospective cohort study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Many scoring systems for predicting mortality, rebleeding and transfusion needs among patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) have been developed. However, no scoring system can predict all these outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To show whether the perfusion index (PI), compared with the Rockall score (RS), helps predict transfusion needs and prognoses among patients presenting with UGIB in emergency departments. In this way, critical patients with transfusion needs can be identified at an early stage. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study in an emergency department in Turkey, conducted between June 2018 and June 2019. METHODS: Patients' demographic parameters, PI, RS, transfusion needs and prognosis were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included. Blood transfusion was performed in 174 patients (79.4%). The PI cutoff value for prediction of the need for blood transfusion was 1.17, and the RS cutoff value was 5. The area under the curve (AUC) value for PI (AUC: 0.772; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.705-0.838; P < 0.001) was higher than for RS (AUC: 0.648; 95% CI: 0.554-0.741; P = 0.002). 185 patients (84.5%) were discharged, and 34 patients (15.5%) died. The PI cutoff value for predicting mortality was 1.1, and the RS cutoff value was 7. The AUC value for PI (AUC: 0.743; 95% CI: 0.649-0.837; P < 0.001) was higher than for RS (AUC: 0.725; 95% CI: 0.639-0.811; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PI values for patients admitted to emergency departments with UGIB on admission can help predict their need for transfusion and mortality risk.

Comparação dos escores não endoscópicos para a previsão de resultados em doentes com sangramento gastrointestinal alto na emergência de um hospital de referência em cuidados terciários: um estudo de coorte prospectivo / Comparison of non-endoscopic scores for the prediction of outcomes in patients of upper gastrointestinal bleed in an emergency of a tertiary care referral hospital: a prospective cohort study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Traditionally peptic ulcer disease was the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleed but with the changing epidemiology; other etiologies of UGI bleed are emerging. Many scores have been described for predicting outcomes and the need for intervention in UGI bleed but prospective comparison among them is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study was planned to determine the etiological pattern of UGI bleed and to compare Glasgow Blatchford score, Pre-Endoscopy Rockall score, AIMS65, and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) as predictors of outcome. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study 268 patients of UGI bleed were enrolled and followed up for 8 weeks. Glasgow Blatchford score, Endoscopy Rockall score, AIMS65, and MEWS were calculated for each patient, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve for each score was compared. RESULTS: The most common etiology for UGI bleed were gastroesophageal varices 150 (63.55%) followed by peptic ulcer disease 29 (12.28%) and mucosal erosive disease 27 (11.44%). Total 38 (15.26%) patients had re-bleed and 71 (28.5%) patients died. Overall, 126 (47%) patients required blood component transfusion, 25 (9.3%) patients required mechanical ventilation and 2 (0.74%) patients required surgical intervention. Glasgow Blatchford score was the best in predicting the need for transfusion (cut off - 10, AUC-ROC= 0.678). Whereas AIMS65 with a score of ≥2 was best in predicting re-bleed (AUC-ROC=0.626) and mortality (AUC-ROC=0.725). CONCLUSION: Gastrointestinal bleed was most commonly of variceal origin at our tertiary referral center in Northern India. AIMS65 was the best & simplest score with a score of ≥2 for predicting re-bleed and mortality.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Tradicionalmente, a doença úlcera péptica era a causa mais comum de sangramento digestivo alto, mas com a mudança da epidemiologia, outras etiologias do sangramento do trato digestivo alto estão emergindo. Muitas pontuações têm sido descritas para prever resultados e a necessidade de intervenção na hemorragia gastrointestinal superior, mas a comparação prospectiva entre elas é escassa. OBJETIVO: Este estudo foi planeado para determinar o padrão etiológico de pacientes com hemorragia digestiva alta e comparar os escores de Glasgow Blatchford, o Rockall pré-endoscopia, o AIMS65 e o Early Warning modificado (MEWS) como preditores do resultado. MÉTODOS: Neste estudo prospetivo de coorte, 268 pacientes com sangramento digestivo alto foram acompanhados durante 8 semanas. Os escores Glasgow Blatchford, Rockall pré-endoscopia, AIMS65 e MEWS foram calculados para cada paciente, e a área sob a curva (AUC-ROC) para cada pontuação foi comparada. RESULTADOS: A etiologia mais comum para a hemorragia gastrointestinal alta foi varizes gastroesofágicas 150 (63,55%), seguida de úlcera péptica 29 (12,28%) e de doença erosiva de mucosa 27 (11,44%). No total, 38 (15,26%) doentes voltaram a sangrar e 71 (28,5%) doentes morreram. No total, 126 (47%) doentes necessitaram de transfusão de componentes sanguíneos, 25 (9,3%) necessitaram de ventilação mecânica e 2 (0,74%) destes doentes necessitaram de intervenção cirúrgica. O escore de Glasgow Blatchford foi o melhor na previsão da necessidade de transfusão (corte - 10, AUC-ROC =0,678). Enquanto o AIMS65 com uma pontuação de ≥2 foi o melhor na previsão de ressangramento (AUC-ROC =0,626) e mortalidade (AUC-ROC =0,725). CONCLUSÃO: O sangramento gastrointestinal alto mais comum é de origem varicosa em centro de referência terciária. O AIMS65 é o melhor escore simples, com uma pontuação de ≥2 para prever o ressangramento e a mortalidade.

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.

Outcome of Conservative Therapy in Coronavirus disease-2019 Patients Presenting With Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data on the management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with Coronavirus disease -2019 (COVID-19) amid concerns about the risk of transmission during endoscopic procedures. We aimed to study the outcomes of conservative treatment for GI bleeding in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 24 of 1342 (1.8%) patients with COVID-19, presenting with GI bleeding from 22nd April to 22nd July 2020, were included. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 45.8 ± 12.7 years; 17 (70.8%) were males; upper GI (UGI) bleeding: lower GI (LGI) 23:1. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients had evidence of cirrhosis- 21 presented with UGI bleeding while one had bleeding from hemorrhoids. Two patients without cirrhosis were presumed to have non-variceal bleeding. The medical therapy for UGI bleeding included vasoconstrictors-somatostatin in 17 (73.9%) and terlipressin in 4 (17.4%) patients. All patients with UGI bleeding received proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics. Packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma (FFPs) and platelets were transfused in 14 (60.9%), 3 (13.0%) and 3 (13.0%), respectively. The median PRBCs transfused was 1 (0-3) unit(s). The initial control of UGI bleeding was achieved in all 23 patients and none required an emergency endoscopy. At 5-day follow-up, none rebled or died. Two patients later rebled, one had intermittent bleed due to gastric antral vascular ectasia, while another had rebleed 19 days after discharge. Three (12.5%) cirrhosis patients succumbed to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure during hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Conservative management strategies including pharmacotherapy, restrictive transfusion strategy, and close hemodynamic monitoring can successfully manage GI bleeding in COVID-19 patients and reduce need for urgent endoscopy. The decision for proceeding with endoscopy should be taken by a multidisciplinary team after consideration of the patient's condition, response to treatment, resources and the risks involved, on a case to case basis.

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. CONCLUSION: 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.

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.