Nicolette L de Groot 1 , Martijn G H van Oijen 1 , Koen Kessels 2 , Maarten Hemmink 2 , Bas L A M Weusten 2 , Robin Timmer 2 , Wouter L Hazen 3 , Niels van Lelyveld 3 , Reinoud R Vermeijden 3 , Wouter L Curvers 4 , Bert C Baak 4 , Robert Verburg 5 , Joukje H Bosman 1 , Laetitia R H de Wijkerslooth 1 , Janne de Rooij 6 , Niels G Venneman 6 , Marieke Pennings 7 , Koen van Hee 7 , Bob C H Scheffer 7 , Rachel L van Eijk 8 , Ruby Meiland 8 , Peter D Siersema 1 , Albert J Bredenoord 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: This study aimed to reassess whether the Forrest classification is still useful for the prediction of rebleeding and mortality in peptic ulcer bleedings and, based on this, whether the classification could be simplified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective registry data on peptic ulcer bleedings were collected and categorized according to the Forrest classification. The primary outcomes were 30-day rebleeding and all-cause mortality rates. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to test whether simplification of the Forrest classification into high risk (Forrest Ia), increased risk (Forrest Ib-IIc), and low risk (Forrest III) classes could be an alternative to the original classification. RESULTS: In total, 397 patients were included, with 18 bleedings (4.5%) being classified as Forrest Ia, 73 (18.4%) as Forrest Ib, 86 (21.7%) as Forrest IIa, 32 (8.1%) as Forrest IIb, 59 (14.9%) as Forrest IIc, and 129 (32.5%) as Forrest III. Rebleeding occurred in 74 patients (18.6%). Rebleeding rates were highest in Forrest Ia peptic ulcers (59%). The odds ratios for rebleeding among Forrest Ib-IIc ulcers were similar. In subgroup analysis, predicting rebleeding using the Forrest classification was more reliable for gastric ulcers than for duodenal ulcers. The simplified Forrest classification had similar test characteristics to the original Forrest classification. CONCLUSION: The Forrest classification still has predictive value for rebleeding of peptic ulcers, especially for gastric ulcers; however, it does not predict mortality. Based on these results, a simplified Forrest classification is proposed. However, further studies are needed to validate these findings. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: This study aimed to reassess whether the Forrest classification is still useful for the prediction of rebleeding and mortality in peptic ulcer bleedings and, based on this, whether the classification could be simplified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective registry data on peptic ulcer bleedings were collected and categorized according to the Forrest classification. The primary outcomes were 30-day rebleeding and all-cause mortality rates. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to test whether simplification of the Forrest classification into high risk (Forrest Ia), increased risk (Forrest Ib-IIc), and low risk (Forrest III) classes could be an alternative to the original classification. RESULTS: In total, 397 patients were included, with 18 bleedings (4.5%) being classified as Forrest Ia, 73 (18.4%) as Forrest Ib, 86 (21.7%) as Forrest IIa, 32 (8.1%) as Forrest IIb, 59 (14.9%) as Forrest IIc, and 129 (32.5%) as Forrest III. Rebleeding occurred in 74 patients (18.6%). Rebleeding rates were highest in Forrest Ia peptic ulcers (59%). The odds ratios for rebleeding among Forrest Ib-IIc ulcers were similar. In subgroup analysis, predicting rebleeding using the Forrest classification was more reliable for gastric ulcers than for duodenal ulcers . The simplified Forrest classification had similar test characteristics to the original Forrest classification. CONCLUSION: The Forrest classification still has predictive value for rebleeding of peptic ulcers , especially for gastric ulcers ; however, it does not predict mortality. Based on these results, a simplified Forrest classification is proposed. However, further studies are needed to validate these findings. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Entities: Disease
Species
Mesh： See more »
Year: 2013
PMID： 24218308 DOI： 10.1055/s-0033-1344884
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endoscopy ISSN： 0013-726X Impact factor: 10.093