Nl de Groot1, Mgh van Oijen2, K Kessels3, M Hemmink3, Blam Weusten4, R Timmer3, Wl Hazen5, N van Lelyveld5, Wl Curvers6, Lc Baak6, R Verburg7, Jh Bosman1, Lrh de Wijkerslooth1, J de Rooij8, Ng Venneman8, M Pennings9, K van Hee9, Rch Scheffer9, Rl van Eijk10, R Meiland10, Pd Siersema1, Aj Bredenoord11. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands ; University of California Los Angeles/Veterans Affairs Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CORE), Los Angeles, CA, USA ; Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical Center Haaglanden, Den Haag, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several prediction scores for triaging patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding have been developed, yet these scores have never been compared to the current gold standard, which is the clinical evaluation by a gastroenterologist. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of prediction scores to gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling in patients with a suspected upper GI bleeding. METHODS: WE PROSPECTIVELY EVALUATED GUT FEELING OF SENIOR GASTROENTEROLOGISTS AND ASKED THEM TO ESTIMATE: (1) the risk that a clinical intervention is needed; (2) the risk of rebleeding; and (3) the risk of mortality in patients presenting with suspected upper GI bleeding, subdivided into low, medium, or high risk. The predictive value of the gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling was compared to the Blatchford and Rockall scores for various outcomes. RESULTS: We included 974 patients, of which 667 patients (68.8%) underwent a clinical intervention. During the 30-day follow up, 140 patients (14.4%) developed recurrent bleeding and 44 patients (4.5%) died. Gut Feeling was independently associated with all studied outcomes, except for the predicted mortality after endoscopy. Predictive power, based on the AUC of the Blatchford and Rockall prediction scores, was higher than the Gut Feeling of the gastroenterologists. However, combining both the Blatchford and Rockall scores and the Gut Feeling yielded the highest predictive power for the need of an intervention (AUC 0.88), rebleeding (AUC 0.73), and mortality (AUC 0.71 predicted before and 0.77 predicted after endoscopy, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Gut Feeling is an independent predictor for the need of a clinical intervention, rebleeding, and mortality in patients presenting with upper GI bleeding; however, the Blatchford and Rockall scores are stronger predictors for these outcomes. Combining Gut Feeling with the Blatchford and Rockall scores resulted in the most optimal prediction.
INTRODUCTION: Several prediction scores for triaging patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding have been developed, yet these scores have never been compared to the current gold standard, which is the clinical evaluation by a gastroenterologist. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of prediction scores to gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling in patients with a suspected upper GI bleeding. METHODS: WE PROSPECTIVELY EVALUATED GUT FEELING OF SENIOR GASTROENTEROLOGISTS AND ASKED THEM TO ESTIMATE: (1) the risk that a clinical intervention is needed; (2) the risk of rebleeding; and (3) the risk of mortality in patients presenting with suspected upper GI bleeding, subdivided into low, medium, or high risk. The predictive value of the gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling was compared to the Blatchford and Rockall scores for various outcomes. RESULTS: We included 974 patients, of which 667 patients (68.8%) underwent a clinical intervention. During the 30-day follow up, 140 patients (14.4%) developed recurrent bleeding and 44 patients (4.5%) died. Gut Feeling was independently associated with all studied outcomes, except for the predicted mortality after endoscopy. Predictive power, based on the AUC of the Blatchford and Rockall prediction scores, was higher than the Gut Feeling of the gastroenterologists. However, combining both the Blatchford and Rockall scores and the Gut Feeling yielded the highest predictive power for the need of an intervention (AUC 0.88), rebleeding (AUC 0.73), and mortality (AUC 0.71 predicted before and 0.77 predicted after endoscopy, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Gut Feeling is an independent predictor for the need of a clinical intervention, rebleeding, and mortality in patients presenting with upper GI bleeding; however, the Blatchford and Rockall scores are stronger predictors for these outcomes. Combining Gut Feeling with the Blatchford and Rockall scores resulted in the most optimal prediction.
Authors: A Lanas; L Aabakken; J Fonseca; Z A Mungan; G V Papatheodoridis; H Piessevaux; L Cipolletta; J Nuevo; M Tafalla Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: John R Saltzman; Ying P Tabak; Brian H Hyett; Xiaowu Sun; Anne C Travis; Richard S Johannes Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: P García-Iglesias; A Villoria; D Suarez; E Brullet; M Gallach; F Feu; J P Gisbert; A Barkun; X Calvet Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Philip W Y Chiu; Enders K W Ng; Frances K Y Cheung; Francis K L Chan; W K Leung; Justin C Y Wu; Vincent W S Wong; M Y Yung; Kelvin Tsoi; James Y W Lau; Joseph J Y Sung; Sydney S C Chung Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-09-13 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Alan N Barkun; Marc Bardou; Ernst J Kuipers; Joseph Sung; Richard H Hunt; Myriam Martel; Paul Sinclair Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J J Y Sung; J Mössner; A Barkun; E J Kuipers; J Lau; D Jensen; R Stuart; O Junghard; G Olsson Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-01-28 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Philip Dunne; Victoria Livie; Aaron McGowan; Wilson Siu; Sardar Chaudhary; Maximillian Groome; Perminder Phull; Andrew Fraser; Allan John Morris; Ian D Penman; Adrian J Stanley Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2021-08-25
Authors: Duc Trong Quach; Ngoi Huu Dao; Minh Cao Dinh; Chung Huu Nguyen; Linh Xuan Ho; Nha-Doan Thi Nguyen; Quang Dinh Le; Cong Minh Hong Vo; Sang Kim Le; Toru Hiyama Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Vera Hoffmann; Henrik Neubauer; Julia Heinzler; Anna Smarczyk; Martin Hellmich; Andrea Bowe; Fabian Kuetting; Muenevver Demir; Agnes Pelc; Sigrid Schulte; Ullrich Toex; Dirk Nierhoff; Hans-Michael Steffen Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.817