Su Shual1, Zhang Zhifang2, Wang Yuming1, Jin Hong1, Sun Chao1, Jiang Kui1, Wang Bangmao1. 1. Department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Neurology, Tianjin Xiqing Hospital, Tianjin, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the clinical Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (CRS), and AIMS65 score in predicting outcomes (rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay) among patients with small bowel hemorrhage. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with small bowel bleeding (SBB). Rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay was investigated by 3 scoring systems. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to analyze the performance of 3 scoring systems. RESULTS: Among 162 included patients, the scores of rebleeding, intervention, and length of stay ≥10 days groups were higher than no rebleeding, non-intervention, and length of stay <10 days groups, respectively (P < .05). The CRS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems demonstrated statistically significant difference in predicting rebleeding (AUROC 0.693 vs. 0.790 vs. 0.740; all P < .01), intervention (AUROC: 0.726 vs. 0.825 vs. 0.773; all P < .01) and length of stay (AUROC 0.651 vs. 0.631 vs. 0.635; all P < .05). Higher cut-off scores achieved better sensitivity/specificity [rebleeding (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); need for intervention (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); length of stay (CRS > 0, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 1)] in the risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: The GBS system is reliable to be recommended for routine use in predicting rebleeding and the need for intervention for early decision making in patients with SBB. The 3 scoring systems are poorly useful in predicting length of stay.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the clinical Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (CRS), and AIMS65 score in predicting outcomes (rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay) among patients with small bowel hemorrhage. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with small bowel bleeding (SBB). Rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay was investigated by 3 scoring systems. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to analyze the performance of 3 scoring systems. RESULTS: Among 162 included patients, the scores of rebleeding, intervention, and length of stay ≥10 days groups were higher than no rebleeding, non-intervention, and length of stay <10 days groups, respectively (P < .05). The CRS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems demonstrated statistically significant difference in predicting rebleeding (AUROC 0.693 vs. 0.790 vs. 0.740; all P < .01), intervention (AUROC: 0.726 vs. 0.825 vs. 0.773; all P < .01) and length of stay (AUROC 0.651 vs. 0.631 vs. 0.635; all P < .05). Higher cut-off scores achieved better sensitivity/specificity [rebleeding (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); need for intervention (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); length of stay (CRS > 0, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 1)] in the risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: The GBS system is reliable to be recommended for routine use in predicting rebleeding and the need for intervention for early decision making in patients with SBB. The 3 scoring systems are poorly useful in predicting length of stay.
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: Tiago Cúrdia Gonçalves; Cátia Arieira; Sara Monteiro; Bruno Rosa; Maria João Moreira; José Cotter Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: David J Cangemi; Mihir K Patel; Victoria Gomez; John R Cangemi; Mark E Stark; Frank J Lukens Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.062