Scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2022
09 Sep 2022
Historique:
entrez:
10
9
2022
pubmed:
11
9
2022
medline:
14
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Few studies have focused on assessing the usefulness of scoring systems such as the Rockall score (RS), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and AIMS65 score for risk stratification and prognosis prediction in peptic ulcer bleeding patients. This study aimed to assess scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. A total of 682 peptic ulcer bleeding patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between January 2013 and December 2017 were found eligible for this study. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each score was calculated for predicting rebleeding, hospitalization, blood transfusion, and mortality. The median age of patients was 64 (interquartile range, 56-75) years. Of the patients, 74.9% were men, and 373 underwent endoscopic intervention. The median RS, GBS, and AIMS65 scores were significantly higher in patients who underwent endoscopic intervention than in those who did not. The AUROC of RS for predicting rebleeding was significantly higher than that of GBS (P = .022) or AIMS65 (P < .001). GBS best predicted the need for blood transfusion than either pre-RS (P = .013) or AIMS65 (P = .001). AIMS65 score showed the highest AUROC for mortality (0.652 vs. 0.622 vs. 0.691). RS was significantly associated with rebleeding (odds ratio, 1.430; P < .001) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.217; P < .001). The RS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems are acceptable tools for predicting clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding. RS is an independent prognostic factor of rebleeding and overall survival.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36086775
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030410
pii: 00005792-202209090-00103
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e30410Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Tielleman T, Bujanda D, Cryer B. Epidemiology and risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015;25:415–28.
Cheng DW, Lu YW, Teller T, Sekhon HK, Wu BU. A modified glasgow blatchford score improves risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleed: a prospective comparison of scoring systems. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;36:782–9.
Wilkins T, Wheeler B, Carpenter M. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults: evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician. 2020;101:294–300.
Stanley AJ, Laine L, Dalton HR, et al.; International Gastrointestinal Bleeding Consortium. Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2017;356:i6432.
Jung DH, Ko BS, Kim YJ, Kim WY. Comparison of risk scores and shock index in hemodynamically stable patients presenting to the emergency department with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;31:781–5.
Park HW, Jeon SW. Clinical outcomes of patients with non-ulcer and non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective multicenter study of risk prediction using a scoring system. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:3253–61.
Budimir I, Stojsavljević S, Baršić N, et al. Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:7450–8.
Nam K, Shin JE, Kim SE, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for upper gastrointestinal diseases in health check-up subjects: a nationwide multicenter study in Korea. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53:910–6.
Cai S, García Rodríguez LA, Massó-González EL, Hernández-Díaz S. Uncomplicated peptic ulcer in the UK: trends from 1997 to 2005. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:1039–48.
Hyett BH, Abougergi MS, Charpentier JP, et al. The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:551–7.
Chandra S. AIMS65 score predicts short-term mortality but not the need for intervention in acute upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:381–2.
Park SW, Song YW, Tak DH, et al. The AIMS65 score is a useful predictor of mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: urgent endoscopy in patients with high AIMS65 scores. Clin Endosc. 2015;48:522–7.
Stanley AJ, Ashley D, Dalton HR, et al. Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation. Lancet. 2009;373:42–7.
Masaoka T, Suzuki H, Hori S, Aikawa N, Hibi T. Blatchford scoring system is a useful scoring system for detecting patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding who do not need endoscopic intervention. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22:1404–8.
Laursen SB, Dalton HR, Murray IA, et al. Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage international consortium, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage international consortium. performance of new thresholds of the Glasgow Blatchford score in managing patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:115–21.e2.
Ramaekers R, Mukarram M, Smith CA, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V. The predictive value of preendoscopic risk scores to predict adverse outcomes in emergency department patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23:1218–27.
Stanley AJ. Update on risk scoring systems for patients with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:2739–44.