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

A nomogram to predict in-hospital mortality of gastrointestinal bleeding patients in the intensive care unit

Background

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common condition in clinical practice, and predictive models for patients with GIB have been developed. However, assessments of in-hospital mortality due to GIB in the intensive care unit (ICU), especially in critically ill patients, are still lacking. This study was designed to screen out independent predictive factors affecting in-hospital mortality and thus establish a predictive model for clinical use.

Methods

This retrospective study included 1,442 patients with GIB who had been admitted to the ICU. They were selected from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) 1.0 database and divided into a training group and a validation group in a ratio of 7:3. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Least absolute shrinkage and section operator (LASSO) regression was used to screen out independent predictors and create a nomogram.

Results

LASSO regression picked out nine independent predictors: heart rate (HR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), acute physiology score III (APSIII), sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), cerebrovascular disease, acute kidney injury (AKI), norepinephrine, vasopressin, and dopamine. Our model proved to have excellent predictive value with regard to in-hospital mortality (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.906 and 0.881 in the training and validation groups, respectively), as well as a good outcome on a decision curve analysis to assess net benefit.

Conclusion

Our model effectively predicts in-hospital mortality in patients with GIB, indicating that it may prove to be a valuable tool in future clinical practice.

Correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score, shock index, and Forrest classification in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding

Background/aim

To investigate the correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score, shock index, and Forrest classification in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).

Materials and methods

A total of 955 patients with PUB were assessed using the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index, as well as the Forrest classification based on their gastroscopy results. The correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index was determined using scatter plot analysis, and the correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score or shock index and Forrest classification was determined using Spearman’s analysis.

Results

Both the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index showed the highest values in patients with Forrest class IIa. The Glasgow-Blatchford score was significantly higher than patients with Forrest class Ib/IIc/III (P < 0.05), and the shock index was significantly higher than patients with Forrest class Ib/IIb/III (P < 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index, at r = 0.427 (P < 0.001). A negative correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and Forrest classification, at r = –0.111 (P < 0.01), and between the shock index and Forrest classification, at r = –0.138 (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

A moderate correlation was observed between the Glasgow-Blatchford score and shock index in patients with PUB, and the correlation between the Forrest classification and Glasgow-Blatchford score or shock index was relatively low.

Comparison of three risk scores to predict outcomes in upper gastrointestinal bleeding; modifying Glasgow-Blatchford with albumin

INTRODUCTION

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is of great importance. In this way, we aimed to evaluate the performance of three well known scoring systems of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) and Full Rockall Score (FRS) in predicting adverse outcomes in patients with UGIB as well as their ability in identifying low risk patients for outpatient management. We also aimed to assess whether changing albumin cutoff in AIMS65 and addition of albumin to GBS add predictive value to these scores.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study on adult patients who were admitted to Razi hospital (Rasht, Iran) with diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding between March 21, 2013 and March 21, 2017. Patients who didn't undergo endoscopy or had incomplete medical data were excluded. Initially, we calculated three score systems of AIMS65, GBS and FRS for each patient by using initial Vital signs and lab data. Secondary, we modified AIMS65 and GBS by changing albumin threshold from <3.5 to <3.0 in AIMS65 and addition of albumin to GBS, respectively. Primary outcomes were defined as in hospital mortality, 30-day rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and endoscopic therapy. Secondary outcome was defined as composition of primary outcomes excluding need for blood transfusion. We used AUROC to assess predictive accuracy of risk scores in primary and secondary outcomes. For albumin-GBS model, the AUROC was only calculated for predicting mortality and secondary outcome. The negative predictive value for AIMS65, GBS and modified AIMS65 was then calculated.

RESULT

Of 563 patients, 3% died in hospital, 69.4% needed blood transfusion, 13.1% needed endoscopic therapy and 3% had 30-day rebleeding. The leading cause of UGIB was erosive disease. In predicting composite of adverse outcomes all scores had statistically significant accuracy with highest AUROC for albumin-GBS. However, in predicting in hospital mortality, only albumin-GBS, modified AIMS65 and AIMS65 had acceptable accuracy. Interestingly, albumin, alone, had higher predictive accuracy than other original risk scores. None of the four scores could predict 30-day rebleeding accurately; on the contrary, their accuracy in predicting need for blood transfusion was high enough. The negative predictive value for GBS was 96.6% in score of ≤2 and 85.7% and 90.2% in score of zero in AIMS65 and modified AIMS65, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Neither of risk scores was highly accurate as a prognostic factor in our population; however, modified AIMS65 and albumin-GBS may be optimal choice in evaluating risk of mortality and general assessment. In identifying patient for safe discharge, GBS ≤ 2 seemed to be advisable choice.

Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford score and full Rockall score systems to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

Various risk scoring systems have been recently developed to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The two commonly used scoring systems include full Rockall score (RS) and the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS). Bleeding scores were assessed in terms of prediction of clinical outcomes in patients with UGIB.

Patients and methods

Two hundred patients (age >18 years) with obvious symptoms of UGIB in the emergency department of Rasoul Akram Hospital were enrolled. Full RS and GBS were calculated. We followed the patients for records of rebleeding and 1-month mortality. A receiver operating characteristic curve by using areas under the curve (AUCs) was used to statistically identify the best cutoff point.

Results

Eighteen patients were excluded from the study due to failure to follow-up. Rebleeding and mortality rate were 9.34% (n=17) and 11.53% (n=21), respectively. Regarding 1-month mortality, full RS was better than GBS (AUC, 0.648 versus 0.582; P=0.021). GBS was more accurate in terms of detecting transfusion need (AUC, 0.757 versus 0.528; P=0.001), rebleeding rate (AUC, 0.722 versus 0.520; P=0.002), intensive care unit admission rate (AUC, 0.648 versus 0.582; P=0.021), and endoscopic intervention rate (AUC, 0.771 versus 0.650; P<0.001).

Conclusion

We found the full RS system is better for 1-month mortality prediction while GBS system is better for prediction of other outcomes.

Simple risk factors to predict urgent endoscopy in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding pre-endoscopically

The goal of this study is to evaluate how to predict high-risk nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) pre-endoscopically. A total of 569 NVUGIB patients between Match 2011 and January 2015 were retrospectively studied. The clinical characteristics and laboratory data were statistically analyzed. The severity of NVUGIB was based on high-risk NVUGIB (Forrest I-IIb), and low-risk NVUGIB (Forrest IIc and III). By logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic curve, simple risk score systems were derived which predicted patients' risks of potentially needing endoscopic intervention to control bleeding. Risk score systems combined of patients' serum hemoglobin (Hb) ≤75 g/L, red hematemesis, red stool, shock, and blood urine nitrogen ≥8.5 mmol/L within 24 hours after admission were derived. As for each one of these clinical signs, the relatively high specificity was 97.9% for shock, 96.4% for red stool, 85.5% for red hematemesis, 76.7% for Hb ≤75 g/L, and the sensitivity was 50.8% for red hematemesis, 47.5% for Hb ≤75 g/L, 14.2% for red stool, and 10.9% for shock. When these 5 clinical signs were presented as a risk score system, the highest area of receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.746, with sensitivity 0.675 and specificity 0.733, which discriminated well with high-risk NVUGIB. These simple risk factors identified patients with high-risk NVUGIB of needing treatment to manage their bleeding pre-endoscopically. Further validation in the clinic was required.