Literature DB >> 34386553

The Clinical Impact of Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scores in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Susana Maia1, Daniela Falcão2, Joana Silva2, Isabel Pedroto1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is crucial for proper management. Rockall score (RS; pre-endoscopic and complete) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are some of the most used scoring systems. This study aims to analyze these scores' ability to predict various clinical outcomes and possible cutoff points to identify low- and high-risk patients. Secondarily, this study intents to evaluate the appropriateness of patients' transfers to our facility, which provides a specialized emergency endoscopy service.
METHODS: This study was retrospectively conducted at Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto and included patients admitted to the Emergency Department with acute manifestations of NVUGIB between January 2016 and December 2018. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and corresponding areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Transferred patients from other institutions and nontransferred (directly admitted to this institution) patients were also compared.
RESULTS: Of a total of 420 patients, 23 (5.9%) died, 34 (8.4%) rebled, 217 (51.7%) received blood transfusion, 153 (36.3%) received endoscopic therapy, 22 (5.7%) had surgery, and 171 (42.3%) required hospitalization in the Intermediate or Intensive Care Unit. Regarding mortality prediction, both complete RS (AUC 0.756, p < 0.001) and pre-endoscopic RS (AUC 0.711, p = 0.001) showed good performance. In the prediction of rebleeding, only complete RS (AUC 0.735, p < 0.001) had discriminative ability. GBS had good performance in the prediction of transfusion (AUC 0.785, p < 0.001). No score showed discriminative capability in the prediction of other outcomes. Transferred and nontransferred patients had similar pre-endoscopic RS (3.41 vs. 3.34, p = 0.692) and GBS (13.29 vs. 12.29, p = 0.056). Only patients with GBS ≥6 were transferred to our facility. There were no adverse outcomes recorded in any group when GBS was ≤3. DISCUSSION/
CONCLUSION: Complete RS and pre-endoscopic RS are effective at predicting mortality, but only complete RS showed good performance at predicting rebleeding. GBS is better at predicting transfusion requirement. Our study suggests that a transfer can possibly be reconsidered if GBS is ≤3, although current recommendations only propose outpatient care when GBS is 0 or 1. Patients' transfers were appropriate, considering the high GBS scores and the outcomes of these patients.
Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopy; Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; Urgent endoscopy

Year:  2021        PMID: 34386553      PMCID: PMC8314760          DOI: 10.1159/000511809

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 2387-1954


  20 in total

1.  Comparison of risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in western India: A prospective analysis.

Authors:  Sanjay Chandnani; Pravin Rathi; Nikhil Sonthalia; Suhas Udgirkar; Shubham Jain; Qais Contractor; Samit Jain; Anupam Kumar Singh
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-05-24

Review 2.  Evaluation and management of Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Ronald Samuel; Mohammad Bilal; Obada Tayyem; Praveen Guturu
Journal:  Dis Mon       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.800

Review 3.  Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Vihas Patel; Jeffrey Nicastro
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2019-11-20

4.  Management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Adrian J Stanley; Loren Laine
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-03-25

Review 5.  Risk stratification in upper and upper and lower GI bleeding: Which scores should we use?

Authors:  Kathryn Oakland
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.043

Review 6.  Clinical utility of pre-endoscopy risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Jennifer Tham; Adrian Stanley
Journal:  Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.869

Review 7.  Initial Assessment, Risk Stratification, and Early Management of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage.

Authors:  Jennifer X Cai; John R Saltzman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2018-04-17

8.  The prognostic significance of the risk scores at upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Y Uysal; S B Babus; A Kose; F Ates; S Biricik; S Erdogan; I Cevik; I Toker; C Ayrik
Journal:  Niger J Clin Pract       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 0.968

9.  AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Min Seong Kim; Jeongmin Choi; Won Chang Shin
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group.

Authors:  Alan N Barkun; Majid Almadi; Ernst J Kuipers; Loren Laine; Joseph Sung; Frances Tse; Grigorios I Leontiadis; Neena S Abraham; Xavier Calvet; Francis K L Chan; James Douketis; Robert Enns; Ian M Gralnek; Vipul Jairath; Dennis Jensen; James Lau; Gregory Y H Lip; Romaric Loffroy; Fauze Maluf-Filho; Andrew C Meltzer; Nageshwar Reddy; John R Saltzman; John K Marshall; Marc Bardou
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.