Literature DB >> 21707681

Multicentre comparison of the Glasgow Blatchford and Rockall Scores in the prediction of clinical end-points after upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

A J Stanley1, H R Dalton, O Blatchford, D Ashley, C Mowat, A Cahill, D R Gaya, E Thompson, U Warshow, N Hare, M Groome, G Benson, W Murray.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) is increasingly being used to predict intervention and outcome following upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). AIM: To compare the GBS with both the admission and full Rockall scores in predicting specific clinical end-points following UGIH. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on consecutive patients presenting to four UK hospitals were collected. Admission history, clinical and laboratory data, endoscopic findings, treatment and clinical follow-up were recorded. Using ROC curves, we compared the three scores in the prediction of death, endoscopic or surgical intervention and transfusion. Results  A total of 1555 patients (mean age 56.7years) presented with UGIH during the study period. Seventy-four (4.8%) died, 223 (14.3%) had endoscopic or surgical intervention and 363 (23.3%) required transfusion. The GBS was similar at predicting death compared with both the admission Rockall (area under ROC curve 0.804 vs. 0.801) and full Rockall score (AUROC 0.741 vs. 0.790). In predicting endo-surgical intervention, the GBS was superior to the admission Rockall (AUROC 0.858 vs. 0.705; P<0.00005) and similar to the full Rockall score (AUROC 0.822 vs. 0.797). The GBS was superior to both admission Rockall (AUROC 0.944 vs. 0.756; P<0.00005) and full Rockall scores (AUROC 0.935 vs. 0.792; P<0.00005) in predicting need for transfusion.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite not incorporating age, the GBS is as effective as the admission and full Rockall scores in predicting death after UGIH. It is superior to both the admission and full Rockall scores in predicting need for transfusion, and superior to the admission Rockall score in predicting endoscopic or surgical intervention.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21707681     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04747.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0269-2813            Impact factor:   8.171


  43 in total

1.  Prediction scores or gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling for triaging patients that present with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Nl de Groot; Mgh van Oijen; K Kessels; M Hemmink; Blam Weusten; R Timmer; Wl Hazen; N van Lelyveld; Wl Curvers; Lc Baak; R Verburg; Jh Bosman; Lrh de Wijkerslooth; J de Rooij; Ng Venneman; M Pennings; K van Hee; Rch Scheffer; Rl van Eijk; R Meiland; Pd Siersema; Aj Bredenoord
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.623

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

Review 4.  Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the elderly: aetiology, diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Asma Ahmed; Adrian J Stanley
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.923

5.  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

6.  The Novel Scoring System for 30-Day Mortality in Patients with Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sejin Hwang; Seong Woo Jeon; Joong Goo Kwon; Dong Wook Lee; Chang Yoon Ha; Kwang Bum Cho; ByungIk Jang; Jung Bae Park; Youn Sun Park
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Antithrombotic drugs and non-variceal bleeding outcomes and risk scoring systems: comparison of Glasgow Blatchford, Rockall and Charlson scores.

Authors:  Ali S Taha; Caroline McCloskey; Theresa Craigen; Wilson J Angerson
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-06-08

8.  Weekend and nighttime effect on the prognosis of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Authors:  Young Hoon Youn; Yong Jin Park; Jae Hak Kim; Tae Joo Jeon; Jae Hee Cho; Hyojin Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 9.  New and emerging endoscopic haemostasis techniques.

Authors:  Rebecca Palmer; Barbara Braden
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-01-23

10.  Risk assessment in acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding: the AIMS65 score in comparison with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in a Scottish population.

Authors:  Andrew J Palmer; Francesca Moroni; Sally Mcleish; Geraldine Campbell; Jonathan Bardgett; Joanna Round; Conor McMullan; Majid Rashid; Robert Clark; Dara De Las Heras; Claire Vincent
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-06-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.