A risk score system for identification of patients with upper-GI bleeding suitable for outpatient management

Acute-on-chronic liver failure is independently associated with higher mortality for cirrhotic patients with acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage: Retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (AEVH) is a common complication of cirrhosis and might precipitate multi-organ failure, causing acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).

AIM

To analyze if the presence and grading of ACLF as defined by European Society for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) is able to predict mortality in cirrhotic patients presenting AEVH.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study executed in Hospital Geral de Caxias do Sul. Data from medical records from 2010 to 2016 were obtained by searching the hospital electronic database for patients who received terlipressin. Medical records were reviewed in order to determine the diagnosis of cirrhosis and AEVH, including 97 patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for univariate analysis and a stepwise approach to the Cox regression for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

All- cause mortality for AEVH patients was 36%, 40.2% and 49.4% for 30-, 90- and 365-day, respectively. The prevalence of ACLF was 41.3%. Of these, 35% grade 1, 50% grade 2 and 15% grade 3. In multivariate analysis, the non-use of non-selective beta-blockers, presence and higher grading of ACLF and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores were independently associated with higher mortality for 30-day with the addition of higher Child-Pugh scores for 90-day period.

CONCLUSION

Presence and grading of ACLF according to the EASL-CLIF criteria was independently associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality in cirrhotic patients admitted due to AEVH.

Risk stratifying patients with non-varicosic upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage using the Glasgow-Blatchford score: A case series of 91 patients

Introduction

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH) often leads to systematic hospitalization and emergency endoscopy. However, in most cases, it does not constitute an immediate life threat. This study aimed to evaluate the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) in predicting the need for transfusions, and/or endoscopic or surgical treatments.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective monocentric study including 91 patients admitted in the general surgery department of the Hospital La Rabta Tunis for a NVUGIH.

Univariate analysis was performed with the Student t-test for continuous variables and with the Chi-square test for categorical variables. For a cut-off point of 9, we calculated the sensibility and the sensitivity of the GBS to predict the need for transfusions and/or hemostatic procedure.

Results

During the study period, 91 patients were admitted for NVUGIH. Sixty-one patients (67%) were transfused. Seven patients (7.7%) underwent emergency surgery and two patients had endoscopic hemostasis.

The predictive factors for the use of transfusion and/or hemostasic treatments were: Age >50 years, ASA score, HR ≥ 90 bpm, pallor, Hb ≤ 9,5 g/dl, Urea ≥9,7 mmol/L.

For a cut-off of 9 points of the GBS, sensitivity was 85.71% and specificity 92.86%. The positive predictive value was 96%. The negative predictive value was 74%.

Conclusion

The main interest of the GBS lies in dispatching the patients between intensive care units for therapeutic intervention (if GBS> = 9) and ordinary hospitalization for surveillance (if GBS <9). It then makes it possible to rationalize the management of patients with digestive hemorrhage to identify those requiring hospital treatments (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, or surgery).

•

Non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding often leads to systematic emergency endoscopy.

•

In most cases, bleeding does not constitute an immediate life threat.

•

The Glasgow-Blatschford score can be reliable to predict the need for therapeutic intervention.

•

For a score inferior to nine, patients can be admitted into an ordinary unit.

Application of chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment score for the predication of mortality after esophageal variceal hemorrhage post endoscopic ligation

BACKGROUND

Esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is one of the high mortality complications in cirrhotic patients. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is currently the standard therapy for EVH. However, some patients have expired during hospitalization or survived shortly after management.

AIM

To evaluate hospital and 6-week mortality by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score compared to a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) class.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 714 cirrhotic patients with EVH post EVL between July 2010 and June 2016 at Taitung MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. CLIF-SOFA score, MELD score, and CTP class were calculated for all patients admitted.

RESULTS

Among the 714 patients, the overall hospital and 6-week mortality rates were 6.9% (49/715) and 13.1% (94/715) respectively. For predicting hospital death, area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values of CLIF-SOFA score, MELD score, and CTP class were 0.964, 0.876, and 0.846. For predicting 6-week death, AUROC values of CLIF-SOFA score, MELD score, and CTP class were 0.943, 0.817, and 0.834. CLIF-SOFA score had higher AUROC value with statistical significance under pairwise comparison than did MELD score and CTP class in prediction of not only hospital but also 6-week mortality. The history of hepatocellular carcinoma was the risk factor for 6-week mortality. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma the cut-point of CLIF-SOFA score was 5.5 for 6-week mortality and 6.5 for hospital mortality on admission. For patients without hepatocellular carcinoma, the cut-point of CLIF-SOFA score was 6.5 for both 6-week and hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

CLIF-SOFA score predicted post-EVL prognosis well. For patients without hepatocellular carcinoma, CLIF-SOFA score ≥6 suggests higher 6-week mortality and CLIF-SOFA score ≥7 suggests higher hospital mortality. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, CLIF-SOFA score ≥7 suggests higher 6-week and hospital mortality.

Glasgow Blatchford, pre-endoscopic Rockall and AIMS65 scores show no difference in predicting rebleeding rate and mortality in variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PRS) and AIMS65 score in predicting specific clinical endpoints following variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2013, we retrospectively analyzed 225 consecutive hospitalized patients managed for endoscopically confirmed UGIH.

RESULTS

A total of 225 patients (mean age 61.3 years), mostly diagnosed with alcoholic cirrhosis (195/86.7%), presented with variceal UGIH during the study period. Rebleeding occurred in 22 (9.8%) patients and 30-day mortality was 39 (17.3%). Initial hemostasis was achieved with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (151/79.1%) and endoscopic variceal ligation (40/20.9%), while secondary rebleeding prophylaxis in 110 (48.9%) patients was accomplished using endoscopic variceal ligation (92%). The majority of patients died from the underlying disease, while 12 (30.8%) died from bleeding. Median hospital stay was 6 (1-35) days. There was no statistically significant difference among AIMS65, GBS and PRS in predicting mortality (AUROC 0.70 vs. 0.64 vs. 0.66) or rebleeding rates (AUROC 0.74 vs. 0.60 vs. 0.67). The GBS was superior in predicting the need for blood transfusion compared to AIMS65 score (AUROC 0.75 vs. 0.61, p = 0.01) and PRS (AUROC 0.75 vs. 0.58, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The AIMS65, GBS and PRS scores are comparable but not useful for predicting outcome in patients with variceal UGIH because of poor discriminative ability. The GBS is superior in predicting the need for transfusion compared to AIMS65 score and PRS.

Risk assessment scores for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and their use in clinical practice

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common cause for emergency admission to hospital representing a significant clinical as well as economic burden. UGIB encompasses a wide range of severities from life-threatening exsanguination to minor bleeding that may not require hospital admission. Patients with UGIB are often initially assessed and managed by junior doctors and non-gastroenterologists. Several risk scores have been created for the assessment of these patients, some requiring endoscopic data for calculation and others that are calculable from clinical data alone. A key question in clinical practice is how to accurately identify patients with UGIB at high risk of adverse outcome. Patients considered high risk are more likely to experience adverse outcomes and will require urgent intervention. In contrast, those patients with UGIB who are considered to be low risk could potentially be managed on an outpatient basis. The Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) appears best at identifying patients at low risk of requiring intervention or death and therefore may be best for use in clinical practice, allowing outpatient management in low risk cases. There has been some debate as to the optimal GBS cut-off score for safely identifying this low-risk group. Many guidelines suggest that patients with a GBS of zero can be safely managed as outpatients, but more recent studies have suggested that this threshold could potentially be safely increased to ≤1. Most other patients require inpatient endoscopy within 24 h and the full Rockall score remains important for risk assessment following endoscopy, particularly as it includes the endoscopic diagnosis. A minority of patients will require emergency endoscopy following resuscitation, but at present there is no evidence that risk scores can accurately identify this very high-risk group. Studies have shown the latest risk assessment score, the AIMS65, looks promising in the prediction of mortality. However, to date there is no data on the use of the AIMS65 in identifying low risk patients for possible outpatient management.

A Novel Easy-to-Use Prediction Scheme for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) Risk Score

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the leading indication for emergency endoscopy. Scoring schemes have been developed for immediate risk stratification. However, most of these scores include endoscopic findings and are based on data from patients with nonvariceal bleeding. The aim of our study was to design a pre-endoscopic score for acute UGIB--including variceal bleeding--in order to identify high-risk patients requiring urgent clinical management. The scoring system was developed using a data set consisting of 586 patients with acute UGIB. These patients were identified from the emergency department as well as all inpatient services at the University Hospital of Cologne within a 2-year period (01/2007-12/2008). Further data from a cohort of 322 patients who presented to our endoscopy unit with acute UGIB in 2009 served for external/temporal validation.Clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic parameters, as well as further data on medical history and medication were retrospectively collected from the electronic clinical documentation system. A multivariable logistic regression was fitted to the development set to obtain a risk score using recurrent bleeding, need for intervention (angiography, surgery), or death within 30 days as a composite endpoint. Finally, the obtained risk score was evaluated on the validation set. Only C-reactive protein, white blood cells, alanine-aminotransferase, thrombocytes, creatinine, and hemoglobin were identified as significant predictors for the composite endpoint. Based on the regression coefficients of these variables, an easy-to-use point scoring scheme (C-WATCH) was derived to estimate the risk of complications from 3% to 86% with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.723 in the development set and 0.704 in the validation set. In the validation set, no patient in the identified low-risk group (0-1 points), but 38.7% of patients in the high-risk group (≥ 2 points) reached the composite endpoint. Our easy-to-use scoring scheme is able to distinguish high-risk patients requiring urgent endoscopy, from low-risk cases who are suitable candidates for outpatient management or in whom endoscopy may be postponed. Based on our findings, a prospective validation of the C-WATCH score in different patient populations outside the university hospital setting seems warranted.

Initial Assessment and Resuscitation in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important cause of hospital admission with an associated mortality of 2-14%. Initial patient evaluation includes rapid hemodynamic assessment, large-bore intravenous catheter insertion and volume resuscitation. A hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is recommended, and packed red blood cell transfusion may be necessary to restore intravascular volume and improve tissue perfusion. Patients should be risk stratified into low- and high-risk categories, using validated prognostic scoring systems such as the Glasgow-Blatchford, AIMS65 or Rockall scores. Effective early management of acute, nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage is critical for improving patient outcomes.

C-reactive protein as a prognostic indicator for rebleeding in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, rebleeding after an initial treatment is observed in 10-20% and is associated with mortality.

AIM

To investigate whether the initial serum C-reactive protein level could predict the risk of rebleeding in patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study using prospectively collected data for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Initial clinical characteristics, endoscopic features, and C-reactive protein levels were compared between those with and without 30-day rebleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 453 patients were included (mean age, 62 years; male, 70.9%). The incidence of 30-day rebleeding was 15.9%. The mean serum C-reactive protein level was significantly higher in these patients than in those without rebleeding (P<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve with a cutoff value of 0.5mg/dL was 0.689 (P<0.001). High serum C-reactive protein level (odds ratio, 2.98; confidence interval, 1.65-5.40) was independently associated with the 30-day rebleeding risk after adjustment for the main confounding risk factors, including age, blood pressure, and initial haemoglobin level.

CONCLUSIONS

The serum C-reactive protein was an independent risk factor for 30-day rebleeding in patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, indicating a possible role as a useful screening indicator for predicting the risk of rebleeding.

Outpatient management of low-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: can we safely extend the Glasgow Blatchford Score in clinical practice?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) is a validated prognostic score for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (UGIB). The score predicts the need for therapeutic intervention or death, and studies have suggested that outpatient management is safe for patients with a GBS of zero. Our aim was to assess whether we could safely extend the threshold for outpatient management to patients with GBS≤1.

METHODS

Following assessment of our historical data, our UGIB protocol was changed to recommend outpatient management for patients with a GBS≤1, unless required for other reasons. Data on all patients presenting with UGIB over the following 12 months were prospectively recorded, including GBS and clinical Rockall scores. Adverse outcomes were defined by a 30-day combined endpoint of death, endotherapy, interventional radiology, surgery or transfusion. Negative predictive value (NPV) of GBS≤1 for adverse outcomes in UGIB was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 514 patients presented with UGIB in the 12 month study period. Of the patients, 183 (35.6%) had GBS≤1 (111, GBS=0; 72, GBS=1). Of these, 88 (48.1%) were managed as outpatients, and none had an adverse outcome. Of the 95 (51.9%) patients with GBS≤1 managed as inpatients, 80 (84.2%) had comorbidities requiring inpatient care. Within this admitted group with GBS≤1, one patient required transfusion and one died from a nongastrointestinal malignancy. GBS≤1 had an NPV of 99.45% (95% confidence interval 95.53-99.97%) in predicting adverse outcomes within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

GBS≤1 has a high NPV for adverse outcomes in UGIB. This suggests outpatient management of patients with UGIB and that GBS≤1 is safe in our population.

Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems for risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford and the AIMS65 scoring systems as early risk assessment tools for accurately identifying patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding who are at a low risk of requiring clinical interventions, including emergency endoscopy. The secondary objective was to compare their performance regarding relevant clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively over a 2-year period in the emergency department of a university hospital. Adult patients with upper GI bleeding from either variceal or nonvariceal sources were included. Composite clinical outcomes consisted of a need for surgical or endoscopic intervention, rebleeding, intensive care unit admission, or in-hospital mortality. Patients who required blood transfusions or suffered composite clinical outcomes were considered high-risk patients. Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and AIMS65 score were calculated for each patient. The sensitivity and specificity of the scoring systems were calculated. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the scores were compared.

RESULTS

There were 254 patients in the study, of whom 163 (64.2%) were men. The median age was 61 years (interquartile range = 45 to 72 years). Among the patients, 211 (83.1%) underwent endoscopy, of whom 49 (19.3%) required endoscopic intervention to achieve hemostasis. Five (2%) patients required surgical intervention. Rebleeding was observed in 33 (13%) patients. A total of 143 (56.3%) patients received blood transfusions. A total of 152 (59.8%) were defined as high risk. Eighty-one (31.9%) experienced at least one component of the composite clinical outcomes, 18 (7.1%) of whom suffered in-hospital mortality. A GBS of 0 was observed in 16 patients (6.3%) in the study group. Two of these were high-risk patients. A total of 101 (39.8%) patients had AIMS65 scores of 0. Thirty-four of these were high-risk patients. A GBS of 0 had higher sensitivity than an AIMS65 score of 0 (98.68% vs. 77.6%). The negative predictive values of the GBS and AIMS65 of 0 were 87.5 and 66.3%, respectively. The GBS and AIMS65 were similar with regard to the composite outcome prediction, with AUCs of 0.795 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.843) and 0.746 (95% CI = 0.688 to 0.798), respectively (p = 0.137). The scores were also similar with respect to predicting in-hospital mortality (AUCs of 0.85 vs. 0.81; p = 0.342). The GBS was superior to the AIMS65 in identifying high-risk patients, with AUCs of 0.896 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.93) and 0.771 (95% CI = 0.714 to 0.821; p < 0.001), respectively. The GBS was also more accurate than the AIM65 in predicting the need for blood transfusions (AUCs of 0.904 vs. 0.796; p < 0.001) and interventions (AUCs of 0.727 vs. 0.647; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the GBS has superior sensitivity relative to the AIMS65 in identifying patients who were not likely to require interventions, including emergency endoscopy. Additional work to determine the use in real-time decision making may be warranted and helpful in providing guidance to clinicians.

Prediction scores or gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling for triaging patients that present with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

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.

Initial assessment and management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a substantial clinical and economic burden, with an estimated mortality rate between 3% and 15%. The initial management starts with hemodynamic assessment and resuscitation. Blood transfusions may be needed in patients with low hemoglobin levels or massive bleeding, and patients who are anticoagulated may require administration of fresh frozen plasma. Patients with significant bleeding should be started on a proton-pump inhibitor infusion, and if there is concern for variceal bleeding, an octreotide infusion. Patients with UGIB should be stratified into low-risk and high-risk categories using validated risk scores. The use of these risk scores can aid in separating low-risk patients who are suitable for outpatient management or early discharge following endoscopy from patients who are at increased risk for needing endoscopic intervention, rebleeding, and death. Upper endoscopy after adequate resuscitation is required for most patients and should be performed within 24 hours of presentation. Key to improving outcomes is appropriate initial management of patients presenting with UGIB.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the elderly: aetiology, diagnosis and treatment

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common, potentially life threatening medical emergency. It is associated with higher rates of hospitalization, morbidity and mortality in the elderly when compared with younger patients, most likely due to higher prevalence of multiple comorbidities. Age is an independent risk factor for mortality in UGIB, with Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and anticoagulants being the most prevalent causal risk factors. These patients require early risk assessment, resuscitation and an attempt to identify and treat the bleeding source. In the majority, this involves early endoscopy and endotherapy as required to achieve haemostasis, with radiological intervention or surgery needed in the minority with ongoing severe bleeding. In this article, we discuss UGIB in the elderly, focusing on aetiology, risk factors and management.

Update on risk scoring systems for patients with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH) remains a common medical emergency worldwide. It is increasingly recognised that early risk assessment is an important part of management, which helps direct appropriate patient care and the timing of endoscopy. Several risk scores have been developed, most of which include endoscopic findings, although a minority do not. These scores were developed to identify various end-points including mortality, rebleeding or clinical intervention in the form of transfusion, endoscopic therapy or surgery. Recent studies have reported accurate identification of a very low risk group on presentation, using scores which require simple clinical or laboratory parameters only. This group may not require admission, but could be managed with early out-patient endoscopy. This article aims to describe the existing pre- and post-endoscopy risk scores for UGIH and assess the published data comparing them in the prediction of outcome. Recent data assessing their use in clinical practice, in particular the early identification of low-risk patients, are also discussed.

Does Ramadan Fasting Increase Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage?

The epidemiological characteristics and clinical results of patients who presented with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (AUGIH) during the month of Ramadan (October 2007) were compared with those who presented with AUGIH during another, non-Ramadan, month (December 2007). The following were evaluated: age, gender, symptoms, gastrointestinal disease history, risk factors, co-existing diseases, results of rectal, nasogastric and endoscopic examinations, treatment modalities and clinical outcomes. Significantly more patients were diagnosed with AUGIH during Ramadan compared with the non-Ramadan month (43 versus 28, respectively). Significantly more patients diagnosed during Ramadan had a history of previous haemorrhage compared with the non-Ramadan month (72.1% versus 42.9%, respectively). Peptic ulcer was the most common event in both groups and overall endoscopy findings differed between the groups. No other significant differences were found. In conclusion, the number of patients presenting with AUGIH during Ramadan was significantly higher than that of an ordinary month, which suggests that fasting during Ramadan reactivates and aggravates preexisting gastrointestinal diseases.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding etiology score for predicting variceal and non-variceal bleeding

AIM: To identify clinical parameters, and develop an Upper Gastrointesinal Bleeding (UGIB) Etiology Score for predicting the types of UGIB and validate the score.

METHODS: Patients with UGIB who underwent endoscopy within 72 h were enrolled. Clinical and basic laboratory parameters were prospectively collected. Predictive factors for the types of UGIB were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses and were used to generate the UGIB Etiology Score. The best cutoff of the score was defined from the receiver operating curve and prospectively validated in another set of patients with UGIB.

RESULTS: Among 261 patients with UGIB, 47 (18%) had variceal and 214 (82%) had non-variceal bleeding. Univariate analysis identified 27 distinct parameters significantly associated with the types of UGIB. Logistic regression analysis identified only 3 independent factors for predicting variceal bleeding; previous diagnosis of cirrhosis or signs of chronic liver disease (OR 22.4, 95% CI 8.3-60.4, P < 0.001), red vomitus (OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.8-11.9, P = 0.02), and red nasogastric (NG) aspirate (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.3-8.3, P = 0.011). The UGIB Etiology Score was calculated from (3.1 × previous diagnosis of cirrhosis or signs of chronic liver disease) + (1.5 × red vomitus) + (1.2 × red NG aspirate), when 1 and 0 are used for the presence and absence of each factor, respectively. Using a cutoff ≥ 3.1, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) in predicting variceal bleeding were 85%, 81%, 82%, 50%, and 96%, respectively. The score was prospectively validated in another set of 195 UGIB cases (46 variceal and 149 non-variceal bleeding). The PPV and NPV of a score ≥ 3.1 for variceal bleeding were 79% and 97%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The UGIB Etiology Score, composed of 3 parameters, using a cutoff ≥ 3.1 accurately predicted variceal bleeding and may help to guide the choice of initial therapy for UGIB before endoscopy.