Literature DB >> 20598244

Comparing the Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in predicting the need for endoscopic therapy in patients with upper GI hemorrhage.

Sandy H Pang1, Jessica Y L Ching, James Y W Lau, Joseph J Y Sung, David Y Graham, Francis K L Chan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The need for therapeutic endoscopy in patients with upper GI hemorrhage is important in determining the risk and disposition of these patients. Pre-endoscopic risk scores may be helpful in predicting this need.
OBJECTIVE: To test the Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores with the need for therapeutic endoscopy as the primary outcome.
DESIGN: Prospective validation study.
SETTING: Tertiary-care university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS AND
INTERVENTIONS: Between January 1, 2006 and February 28, 2007, 1087 patients with upper GI hemorrhage who had undergone an inpatient EGD within 24 hours were entered in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores were prospectively calculated for all patients, and the need for therapeutic endoscopy was determined during the EGD.
RESULTS: Of the 1087 patients, 297 (27.3%) needed therapeutic endoscopy. The mean Blatchford score for those who needed therapeutic endoscopy was significantly higher (mean [standard deviation]: 10.3 [3.5] vs 7.0 [4.4], P < .001). The area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68-0.75). A threshold of 0 (low risk) predicted the need for therapeutic endoscopy with 100% sensitivity and 6.3% specificity. Fifty (4.6%) patients were identified as low risk. The pre-endoscopic Rockall score was unable to predict this need. LIMITATIONS: The decision to perform therapeutic endoscopy is a subjective one, although endoscopists are trained to follow international consensus guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: The Blatchford score is more useful for predicting low-risk patients who do not need therapeutic endoscopy and who may be suitable for outpatient management. A threshold of 0 for low risk should be used. The Rockall score is not helpful in predicting the presence of low-risk lesions. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20598244     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  36 in total

1.  Endoscopy: Risk assessment in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 46.802

2.  Glasgow Blatchford Score and risk stratifications in acute upper gastrointestinal bleed: can we extend this to 2 for urgent outpatient management?

Authors:  Kelly Chatten; Huw Purssell; Ashwini Kumar Banerjee; Stephanie Soteriadou; Yeng Ang
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 3.  Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Authors:  Sara Monteiro; Tiago Cúrdia Gonçalves; Joana Magalhães; José Cotter
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol       Date:  2016-02-15

4.  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.

Authors:  Juan G Martínez-Cara; Rita Jiménez-Rosales; Margarita Úbeda-Muñoz; Mercedes López de Hierro; Javier de Teresa; Eduardo Redondo-Cerezo
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 4.623

5.  Is the AIMS65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding?

Authors:  Sung Hoon Jung; Jung Hwan Oh; Hye Yeon Lee; Joon Won Jeong; Se Eun Go; Chan Ran You; Eun Jung Jeon; Sang Wook Choi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Update on risk scoring systems for patients with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

Authors:  Adrian J Stanley
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Comparison of computed tomography findings with clinical risks factors for endoscopic therapy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases.

Authors:  Fumitake Jono; Hiroshi Iida; Koji Fujita; Megumi Kaai; Kenji Kanoshima; Kanji Ohkuma; Takashi Nonaka; Tomonori Ida; Akihiko Kusakabe; Atsushi Nakamura; Shigeru Koyama; Atsushi Nakajima; Masahiko Inamori
Journal:  J Clin Biochem Nutr       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.114

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

Authors:  Syed Mudassir Laeeq; Abbas Ali Tasneem; Farina M Hanif; Nasir Hassan Luck; Rajesh Mandhwani; Rajesh Wadhva
Journal:  J Transl Int Med       Date:  2017-06-30

9.  Predictors of poor outcome in gastrointestinal bleeding in emergency department.

Authors:  Ender Kaya; Mehmet Ali Karaca; Deniz Aldemir; M Mahir Ozmen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Pillcam ESO(®) is more accurate than clinical scoring systems in risk stratifying emergency room patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Ellen Gutkin; Albert Shalomov; Syed A Hussain; Sang H Kim; Rafael Cortes; Sondra Gray; Hani Judeh; Simcha Pollack; Moshe Rubin
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.409

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.