Literature DB >> 25599218

Comparison of Three Risk Scores to Predict Outcomes of Severe Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Marine Camus1, Dennis M Jensen, Gordon V Ohning, Thomas O Kovacs, Rome Jutabha, Kevin A Ghassemi, Gustavo A Machicado, Gareth S Dulai, Mary E Jensen, Jeffrey A Gornbein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Improved medical decisions by using a score at the initial patient triage level may lead to improvements in patient management, outcomes, and resource utilization. There is no validated score for management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) unlike for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracies of 3 different prognostic scores [Center for Ulcer Research and Education Hemostasis prognosis score, Charlson index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score] for the prediction of 30-day rebleeding, surgery, and death in severe LGIB.
METHODS: Data on consecutive patients hospitalized with severe gastrointestinal bleeding from January 2006 to October 2011 in our 2 tertiary academic referral centers were prospectively collected. Sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve were computed for 3 scores for predictions of rebleeding, surgery, and mortality at 30 days.
RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five consecutive patients with LGIB were included between 2006 and 2011. Twenty-three percent of patients rebled, 6% had surgery, and 7.7% of patients died. The accuracies of each score never reached 70% for predicting rebleeding or surgery in either. The ASA score had a highest accuracy for predicting mortality within 30 days (83.5%), whereas the Center for Ulcer Research and Education Hemostasis prognosis score and the Charlson index both had accuracies <75% for the prediction of death within 30 days.
CONCLUSIONS: ASA score could be useful to predict death within 30 days. However, a new score is still warranted to predict all 30 days outcomes (rebleeding, surgery, and death) in LGIB.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25599218      PMCID: PMC4504830          DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000286

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0192-0790            Impact factor:   3.062


  27 in total

1.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

2.  BLEED: a classification tool to predict outcomes in patients with acute upper and lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Authors:  M H Kollef; J D O'Brien; G R Zuckerman; W Shannon
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  Epidemiology and outcome of patients hospitalized with acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a population-based study.

Authors:  G F Longstreth
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Influencing the practice and outcome in acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Steering Committee of the National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage.

Authors:  T A Rockall; R F Logan; H B Devlin; T C Northfield
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Prospective evaluation of a clinical guideline recommending hospital length of stay in upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage.

Authors:  J A Hay; L Maldonado; S R Weingarten; A G Ellrodt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997 Dec 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

Authors:  T A Rockall; R F Logan; H B Devlin; T C Northfield
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Physician specialty and variations in the cost of treating patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  D M Quirk; M J Barry; B Aserkoff; D K Podolsky
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Outpatient care of selected patients with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

Authors:  G F Longstreth; S P Feitelberg
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-01-14       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Selection of patients for early discharge or outpatient care after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage.

Authors:  T A Rockall; R F Logan; H B Devlin; T C Northfield
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-04-27       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Incidence of and mortality from acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. Steering Committee and members of the National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage.

Authors:  T A Rockall; R F Logan; H B Devlin; T C Northfield
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-22
View more
  4 in total

1.  Laparotomy and intraoperative enteroscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding before and after the era of video capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy: A tertiary center experience.

Authors:  Wuttiporn Manatsathit; Usah Khrucharoen; Dennis M Jensen; O Joe Hines; Thomas Kovacs; Gordon Ohning; Rome Jutabha; Kevin Ghassemi; Gareth S Dulai; Gustavo Machicado
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Comparison of Risk Scores for Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Majed Almaghrabi; Mandark Gandhi; Leonardo Guizzetti; Alla Iansavichene; Brian Yan; Aze Wilson; Kathryn Oakland; Vipul Jairath; Michael Sey
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-05-02

Review 3.  Lower GI bleeding: a review of current management, controversies and advances.

Authors:  Andrew J Moss; Hussein Tuffaha; Arshad Malik
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-10-10       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in an Emergency Department and Performance of the SHA2PE Score: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Titouan Cerruti; Michel Haig Maillard; Olivier Hugli
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 4.241

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.