Prospective multicenter validation of the Glasgow Blatchford bleeding score in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage presenting at an emergency department

Evaluating The Glasgow Blatchford Score for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk Stratification in A Community Hospital: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common emergency in gastroenterology. The Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) is a validated tool used for risk stratification. The cutoff values for GBS to predict the need for clinical intervention, endoscopic treatment, and mortality, are not consistent. To determine the relationship between mean GBS score and the need for hemostatic intervention, and blood transfusion, and to evaluate quality of care and proper allocation of resources at our midwestern community hospital.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we retrospectively extracted records for patients ≥18 years who were admitted for UGIB and underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between July 2018 and July 2020. GBS was calculated for each observation. Multivariate analysis and a logistic regression model were performed to predict the GBS score, and the odds ratio, associated with the need for hemostatic intervention and blood transfusion while controlling for confounding factors.

RESULTS

The GBS sample mean score was 11.17. Those who required hemostatic intervention and blood transfusion scored significantly higher GBS (13.18 versus 10.79) and (13.57 versus 9.21), respectively. A GBS of >10 was associated with higher odds at 21.84 (CI: 10.324,46.185, P<0.001) and 5.085 (CI: 1.864, 13.872, P=0.001) for receiving blood transfusion and hemostatic intervention, respectively. A cutoff of 10 was 22.41% sensitive and 95.41% specific for requiring hemostatic interventions and 66.67% sensitive and 89.91% specific for receiving blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

There is a clinical role to using the GBS even at a score higher than 2 to further stratify the severity of UGIB and determine the need for intervention. The sensitivity of a score of 10 on the GBS in this dataset was low. A cutoff with higher sensitivity is needed to stratify a life-threatening condition such as UGIB.

The efficacy and comparison of upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scoring systems on predicting clinical outcomes among emergency unit patients

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among emergency unit patients. Several scoring systems are verified for predicting hospitalization and mortality such as Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), AIMS65 score, Rockall score (RS), and International Bleeding Risk Score (INBS; ABC score). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and predictive value of these scoring systems.

METHODS

Adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled. The age, gender, complaints at admission, vitals and examination results, laboratory findings, outcomes, blood transfusion status, and endoscopic interventions were all reported, and GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores were calculated individually for all enrollies.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients were included. The median age of participants was 70 years (IQR (25-75%): 59-81), and 202 (65%) of them were male. The efficacy of all four scoring systems (GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC)) in predicting hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05 for all). ROC-AUC analysis was revealed that while GBS is the most beneficial in predicting hospitalization, INBS (ABC) has the best predictive value on mortality. Besides, the only scoring model with predictive value in determining the need for endoscopic intervention was RS (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that, among adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores could successfully predict hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality. However, the only scoring system that could be used to determine the need of endoscopic intervention is RS. Finally, we believe further studies with prospective enrollment would be beneficial for more accurate conclusions.

Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Comparison of urgent and early endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

Data regarding early (within 24h) and urgent endoscopy (within 12h) in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NV-UGIB) revealed conflicting results. This study aimed to investigate the impact of endoscopy timing on the outcomes of high-risk patients with NV-UGIB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2020 to February 2021, consecutive high-risk (Glasgow-Blatchford score ≥12) adults admitted to the emergency department with NV-UGIB were analyzed retrospectively. The primary composite outcome was 30-day mortality from any cause, inpatient rebleeding, need for endoscopic re-intervention, need for surgery or angiographic embolization.

RESULTS

240 patients were enrolled: 152 (63%) patients underwent urgent endoscopy (<12h) and 88 (37%) patients underwent early endoscopy (12-24h). One or more components of the composite outcome were observed in 53 (22.1%) patients: 30 (12.5%) had 30-day mortality, rebleeding occurred in 27 (11.3%), 7 (2.9%) underwent endoscopic re-intervention, and 5 (2.1%) required surgery or angiographic embolization. The composite outcome was similar between the groups. Multivariate analysis showed only hemodynamic instability on admission (OR: 3.05, p=0.006), and the previous history of cancer (OR: 2.42, p=0.029) were significant in predicting composite outcome. In terms of secondary outcomes, the endoscopic intervention was higher in the urgent endoscopy group (p=0.006), whereas the number of transfused erythrocyte suspensions and the length of hospital stay was higher in the early endoscopy group (p=0.002 and p=0.040, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent endoscopy leads to a significant reduction in the length of hospitalization and the number of transfused erythrocyte suspensions in NV-UGIB, which can contribute to patient satisfaction, reduce healthcare expenditure, and improve hospital bed availability. The composite outcome and its sub-outcomes were the same among both groups.

The Predictive Value of Glasgow-Blatchford Score: The Experience of an Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) is a common emergency and a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. An early and accurate assessment at admission is essential to estimate the severity of each case, assisting in the management of patients. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) is currently recommended for risk stratification of UGB in the emergency department (ED), helping triage patients to in-hospital vs. ambulatory management. The aim of this study was to test the validity of the GBS in an ED.

METHODS

Patients who presented to the ED with a diagnosis of UGB between 2017 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean GBS value of the 149 patients included in the study was 10.3. Of the patients, 4.3% had values ≤1 and 8.7% had values ≤3. The sensitivity and negative predictive value for intervention needs (98.9% and 91.7%) and complications in 30 days (100% and 100%) remained high with a threshold ≤3. In the receiver operating characteristic curves, GBS presented an area under the curve of 0.883 and 0.625, regarding the need for intervention and complications in 30 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, the threshold ≤2, and eventually ≤3, allows the identification of twice as many low-risk patients, manageable as outpatients, without significant increases in intervention needs or complications in 30 days.

Risk factors of active upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with COVID-19 infection and the effectiveness of PPI prophylaxis

Background

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most impactful complications in patients hospitalized from COVID-19 infection. Limited study has focused on patients with upper GI bleeding (UGIB). This study aimed to identify the risk factors of patients who were hospitalized from COVID-19 infection and developed UGIB as well as the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in those patients.

Methods

This study was comprised of two phases. The first phase was the retrospective enrollment of patients who were admitted due to COVID-19 infection and developed UGIB between April and August 2021 to evaluate the associated factors of active UGIB. The second phase was a retrospective analysis after PPI prophylaxis protocol from September – October 2021 to assess the benefit of PPI use in those patients.

Results

Of 6,373 patients hospitalized, 43 patients (0.7%) had evidence of UGIB. The majority were male 28 (65.1%) with a mean age of 69.1 ± 11.8 years. Twenty-four of 43 patients (55.8%) needed mechanical ventilation, 35 patients (81.4%) received systemic corticosteroids, and 10 patients (23.3%) were taking anticoagulants for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis. Seven of 43 patients (16%) had active UGIB. There was no significant difference in the number of patients taking antiplatelets, anticoagulants, or steroids and the severity of COVID-19 infection between the two groups. An emergency endoscopy or endoscopic hemostasis were performed in 6/7 (85.7%) patients. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed two significant factors associated with active UGIB including higher of Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) per point (OR = 7.89; 95%CI 1.03–72.87; p = 0.04) and an absence of PPI use (OR 4.29; 95%CI 1.04–19.51; p = 0.04). After prescribing PPI as a prophylaxis, there was a slightly lower incidence of UGIB (0.6% vs 0.7%) in addition to an absence of active UGIB (0% vs 16%).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that the absence of PPI and higher GBS were significant risk factors for active UGIB which required therapeutic endoscopy in patients with COVID-19 infection. We suggest that short-term PPI prophylaxis should be prescribed in those patients once they need hospitalization regardless of the severity of COVID-19 infection to minimize the severity of UGIB.

Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in an Emergency Department and Performance of the SHA2PE Score: A Retrospective Observational Study

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a frequent cause of emergency department (ED) consultation, leading to investigations but rarely to urgent therapeutic interventions. The SHA₂PE score aims to predict the risk of hospital-based intervention, but has never been externally validated. The aim of our single-center retrospective study was to describe patients consulting our ED for LGIB and to test the validity of the SHA₂PE score. We included 251 adult patients who consulted in 2017 for hematochezia of <24 h duration; 53% were male, and the median age was 54 years. The most frequent cause of LGIB was unknown (38%), followed by diverticular disease and hemorrhoids (14%); 20% had an intervention. Compared with the no-intervention group, the intervention group was 26.5 years older, had more frequent bleeding in the ED (47% vs. 8%) and more frequent hypotension (8.2% vs. 1.1%), more often received antiplatelet drugs (43% vs. 18%) and anticoagulation therapy (28% vs. 9.5%), more often had a hemoglobin level of <10.5 g/dl (49% vs. 6.2%) on admission, and had greater in-hospital mortality (8.2% vs. 0.5%) (all p < 0.05). The interventions included transfusion (65%), endoscopic hemostasis (47%), embolization (8.2%), and surgery (4%). The SHA₂PE score predicted an intervention with sensitivity of 71% (95% confidence interval: 66–83%), specificity of 81% (74–86%), and positive and negative predictive values of 53% (40–65%) and 90% (84–95%), respectively. SHA₂PE performance was inferior to that in the original study, with a 1 in 10 chance of erroneously discharging a patient for outpatient intervention. Larger prospective validation studies are needed before the SHA₂PE score can be recommended to guide LGIB patient management in the ED.

Prospective Comparison of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to determine the performance of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and to compare the results between patients with nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) and those with variceal UGIB (VUGIB).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study between March 2016 and December 2017. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed for all outcomes for comparison. The associations of all three scores with mortality were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the total of 337 patients with UGIB, 267 patients (79.2%) had NVUGIB. AIMS65 was significantly associated (odds ratio [OR], 1.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.148-2.620), RS was marginally associated (OR, 1.225; 95% CI, 0.973-1.543), but GBS was not associated (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890-1.163) with mortality risk in patients with UGIB. However, all three scores accurately predicted all other outcomes (all p<0.05) except rebleeding (p>0.05). Only AIMS65 precisely predicted mortality, the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint (all p<0.05) in patients with VUGIB.

CONCLUSION

AIMS65 is superior to GBS and RS in predicting mortality in patients with UGIB, and also precisely predicts the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. No scoring system could satisfactorily predict rebleeding in all patients with UGIB.

Predictors for the need for endoscopic therapy in patients with presumed acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Selecting patients with an urgent need for endoscopic hemostasis is difficult based only on simple parameters of presumed acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This study assessed easily applicable factors to predict cases in need of urgent endoscopic hemostasis due to acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

The consecutively included patients were divided into the endoscopic hemostasis and nonendoscopic hemostasis groups. We reviewed the enrolled patients' medical records and analyzed various variables and parameters for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding outcomes such as demographic factors, comorbidities, symptoms, signs, laboratory findings, rebleeding rate, and mortality to evaluate simple predictive factors for endoscopic treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 613 patients were analyzed, including 329 patients in the endoscopic hemostasis and 284 patients in the non-endoscopic hemostasis groups. In the multivariate analysis, a bloody nasogastric lavage (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.786; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.990 to 11.543; p < 0.0001) and a hemoglobin level less than 8.6 g/dL (AOR, 1.768; 95% CI, 1.028 to 3.039; p = 0.039) were independent predictors for endoscopic hemostasis. Significant differences in the morbidity rates of endoscopic hemostasis were detected between the group with no predictive factors and the group with one or more predictive factors (OR, 2.677; 95% CI, 1.920 to 3.733; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

A bloody nasogastric lavage and hemoglobin < 8.6 g/dL were independent predictors of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

The SHA2PE score: a new score for lower gastrointestinal bleeding that predicts low-risk of hospital-based intervention

OBJECTIVES

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) risk scores have mainly focused on identifying high-risk patients. A risk score aimed at predicting which patients will not require hospital-based intervention may reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. The aim of the current study was to develop such a risk score.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective, population-based study that included patients presenting to the emergency room (ER) with LGIB from 2010 to 2013. Hospital-based intervention was defined as blood transfusion, endoscopic hemostasis, arterial embolization or surgery. The study cohort was split into train (70%) and test (30%) data. Train data were used to produce a multiple logistic regression model and a risk score that was validated on the test data.

RESULTS

Overall, 581 patients presented 625 times to the ER, mean age 61 (±22), males 49%. Of train data patients, 72% did not require hospital-based intervention. Independent predictors of low-risk patients (did not require hospital-based intervention) were systolic pressure ≥100mmHg (Odds ratio [OR] 4.9), hemoglobin >12g/dL (OR 103), hemoglobin 10.5-12.0g/dL (OR 19), no antiplatelets (OR 3.7), no anticoagulants (OR 2.2), pulse ≤100 (OR 2.9), and visible bleeding in the ER (OR 3.8). When validating the score on the test data, only 2% were wrongly predicted to be low-risk, the negative predictive value was 96% and the area under curve was 0.83.

CONCLUSIONS

A new risk score has been developed for LGIB that may help identify low-risk patients in the ER that can be managed in an outpatient setting, thereby lowering unnecessary hospital admissions.

Glasgow Blatchford Score and risk stratifications in acute upper gastrointestinal bleed: can we extend this to 2 for urgent outpatient management?

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds are a common presentation to emergency departments in the UK. The Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS) predicts the outcome of patients at presentation. Current UK and European guidelines recommend outpatient management for a GBS of 0. In the current study, our aim was to assess whether extending the GBS allows for early discharge while maintaining patient safety. We also analysed whether pathologies could be missed by discharging patients too early. Data were retrospectively collected on patients admitted with symptoms of an upper GI bleed between 1 October 2013 and 10 June 2016. The GBS was calculated and gastroscopy reports were obtained for each patient. In total, 399 patients were identified, 63 of whom required therapy. The negative predictive value (NPV) for excluding the need for endoscopic intervention with a GBS score up to 1 was 100%. Extending the score to 2 and 3 reduced the NPV to 98.53% and 98.77%, respectively. The NPV of GBS in excluding any diagnosis at 0 was 43.55%. Two patients died as a result of GI bleeding, with a GBS score of 3. Therefore, we can conclude that, for non-variceal bleeds, the GBS can be extended to 2 for safe outpatient management, thereby reducing the number of bed days and pressure for urgent endoscopies.

Outcomes and Role of Urgent Endoscopy in High-Risk Patients With Acute Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated clinical outcomes in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and determined if urgent endoscopy is effective.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a Glasgow-Blatchford score greater than 7 who underwent endoscopy for acute nonvariceal UGIB at the emergency department from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, were included. Urgent (<6 h) and elective (6-48 h) endoscopies were defined according to the time to endoscopy after the initial presentation. The primary outcomes were mortality and rebleeding within 28 days of admission.

RESULTS

Among 961 patients, 571 patients underwent urgent endoscopy. The 28-day mortality rate was 2.5%, and the rebleeding rate was 10.4%. There were significant differences in mortality rate (1.6% vs 3.8%), the number of transfused packed red blood cells (2.6 ± 2.5 vs 2.3 ± 2.1 packs), need for intervention (69.5% vs 53.5%), and embolization (2.8% vs 0.5%), but no differences in rebleeding, intensive care unit admission, vasopressor use, and length of stay between the urgent and elective endoscopy groups. Mortality was associated with malignancy (odds ratio [OR], 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-9.62), cirrhosis (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.85-11.76), urgent endoscopy (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.95), failed primary endoscopic treatment (OR, 15.03; 95% CI, 4.63-48.82), and rebleeding (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.03-7.45). Rebleeding was associated with Forrest I ulcers (OR, 7.67; 95% CI, 2.71-21.69), Forrest II ulcers (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60), and coagulopathy (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.51-3.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent endoscopy was an independent predictor of lower mortality rate but was not associated with rebleeding in high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.

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.

Red Blood Cell Transfusions and Iron Therapy for Patients Presenting with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Survey of Canadian Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists

Introduction. There is limited data evaluating physician transfusion practices in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Methods. A web-based survey was sent to 500 gastroenterologists and hepatologists across Canada. The survey included clinical vignettes where physicians were asked to choose transfusion thresholds. Results. The response rate was 41% (N = 203). The reported hemoglobin (Hgb) transfusion trigger differed by up to 50 g/L. Transfusions were more liberal in hemodynamically unstable patients compared to stable patients (mean Hgb of 86.7 g/L versus 71.0 g/L; p < 0.001). Many clinicians (24%) reported transfusing a hemodynamically unstable patient at a Hgb threshold of 100 g/L and the majority (57%) are transfusing two units of RBCs as initial management. Patients with coronary artery disease (mean Hgb of 84.0 g/L versus 71.0 g/L; p < 0.01) or cirrhosis (mean Hgb of 74.4 g/L versus 71.0 g/L; p < 0.01) were transfused more liberally than healthy patients. Fewer than 15% would prescribe iron to patients with UGIB who are anemic upon discharge. Conclusions. The transfusion practices of gastroenterologists in the management of UGIB vary widely and more high-quality evidence is needed to help assess the efficacy and safety of selected transfusion thresholds in varying patients presenting with UGIB.