The management of low-risk primary upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage in the community: a 5-year observational study

Guidelines for endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (second edition)

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society has prepared Guidelines for Endoscopic Practice in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding as part of the initiative to develop evidence-based endoscopic practice guidelines. Hemorrhagic gastroduodenal (peptic) ulcers are the primary cause of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. With the advent of a super-aged society, the cases caused by Helicobacter pylori are on the decline, whereas those caused by drugs (e.g. aspirin) have been increasing. Endoscopic hemostasis is currently the first-line treatment for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and various methods have been devised for this purpose. It is recommended to stabilize the vital signs of the patient before and after endoscopic hemostasis with appropriate management based on an assessment of the severity of illness, in addition to the administration of acid secretion inhibitors. These guidelines describe the evaluation and initial treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the selection of endoscopic hemostasis for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and its management after endoscopic hemostasis. This is achieved by classifying nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding into two main categories, namely, peptic ulcer and other types of gastrointestinal bleeding. We prepared statements for any available literature with supporting evidence, including the levels of evidence and recommendations. New evidence has been pooled since the publication of the first edition in this area; however, the levels of evidence and recommendations mostly remain low.

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.

MAP(ASH): A new scoring system for the prediction of intervention and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Risk stratification for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended. However, scoring system accuracy is suboptimal, and score calculation can be complex. Our aim was to develop a new score, the MAP(ASH) score, with information available in the emergency room and to validate it.

METHODS

The score was built from a prospective database of patients with UGIB and validated in an international database of 3012 patients from six hospitals. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, endoscopic intervention, any intervention (red blood transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or death), and rebleeding. Accuracy to predict outcomes was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-seven patients were included in the development cohort. Impaired mental status, albumin < 2.5 g/dL, pulse > 100, American Society of Anesthesiologists score > 2, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and hemoglobin < 10 g/dL were included in the score. The model had a good predictive accuracy for intervention (AUROC = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.88) and fair for mortality (AUROC = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68-0.81). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AUROC was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.56-0.66) in the original cohort and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) in the validation cohort, showing a poor performance, similar to other scores. For rebleeding, the MAP(ASH) (AUROC 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69-0.77) was similar to Glasgow Blatchford score (AUROC = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) but superior to AIMS65 (AUROC = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.68).

CONCLUSION

MAP(ASH) is a simple pre-endoscopy risk score to predict intervention after UGIB, with fair discrimination at predicting mortality. Because of its applicability, it could be an option in clinical practice.

Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study

OBJECTIVE

 To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

DESIGN

 International multicentre prospective study.

SETTING

 Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania.

PARTICIPANTS

 3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

 Comparison of pre-endoscopy scores (admission Rockall, AIMS65, and Glasgow Blatchford) and post-endoscopy scores (full Rockall and PNED) for their ability to predict predefined clinical endpoints: a composite endpoint (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or 30 day mortality), endoscopic treatment, 30 day mortality, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay. Optimum score thresholds to identify low risk and high risk patients were determined.

RESULTS

 The Glasgow Blatchford score was best (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) at predicting intervention or death compared with the full Rockall score (0.70), PNED score (0.69), admission Rockall score (0.66, and AIMS65 score (0.68) (all P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≤1 was the optimum threshold to predict survival without intervention (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 34.6%). The Glasgow Blatchford score was better at predicting endoscopic treatment (AUROC 0.75) than the AIMS65 (0.62) and admission Rockall scores (0.61) (both P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≥7 was the optimum threshold to predict endoscopic treatment (sensitivity 80%, specificity 57%). The PNED (AUROC 0.77) and AIMS65 scores (0.77) were best at predicting mortality, with both superior to admission Rockall score (0.72) and Glasgow Blatchford score (0.64; P<0.001). Score thresholds of ≥4 for PNED, ≥2 for AIMS65, ≥4 for admission Rockall, and ≥5 for full Rockall were optimal at predicting death, with sensitivities of 65.8-78.6% and specificities of 65.0-65.3%. No score was helpful at predicting rebleeding or length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

 The Glasgow Blatchford score has high accuracy at predicting need for hospital based intervention or death. Scores of ≤1 appear the optimum threshold for directing patients to outpatient management. AUROCs of scores for the other endpoints are less than 0.80, therefore their clinical utility for these outcomes seems to be limited.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16235737.

Guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has compiled a set of guidelines for endoscopic management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using evidence-based methods. The major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. As a result, these guidelines mainly focus on peptic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, although bleeding from other causes is also overviewed. From the epidemiological aspect, in recent years in Japan, bleeding from drug-related ulcers has become predominant in comparison with bleeding from Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related ulcers, owing to an increase in the aging population and coverage of HP eradication therapy by national health insurance. As for treatment, endoscopic hemostasis, in which there are a variety of methods, is considered to be the first-line treatment for bleeding from almost all causes. It is very important to precisely evaluate the severity of the patient's condition and stabilize the patient's vital signs with intensive care for successful endoscopic hemostasis. Additionally, use of antisecretory agents is recommended to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, especially for gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Eighteen statements with evidence and recommendation levels have been made by the JGES committee of these guidelines according to evidence obtained from clinical research studies. However, some of the statements that are supported by a low level of evidence must be confirmed by further clinical research.

Prospective comparison of three risk scoring systems in non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Data regarding the efficacy of the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), full Rockall score (FRS) and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores (PRS) in comparing non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are limited. Our aim was to determine the performance of these three risk scores in predicting the need for treatment, mortality, and re-bleeding among patients with non-variceal and variceal UGIB.

METHODS

During January, 2010 and September, 2011, patients with UGIB from 11 hospitals were prospectively enrolled. The GBS, FRS, and PRS were calculated. Discriminative ability for each score was assessed using the receiver operated characteristics curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 981 patients presented with acute UGIB, 225 patients (22.9%) had variceal UGIB. The areas under the ROC (AUC) of the GBS, FRS, and PRS for predicting the need for treatment were 0.77, 0.69, and 0.61 in non-variceal versus 0.66, 0.66, and 0.59 in variceal UGIB. The AUC for predicting mortality and re-bleeding during admission were 0.66, 0.80, and 0.76 in non-variceal versus 0.63, 0.57, and 0.63 in variceal UGIB. AUC score was not statistically significant for predicting need for therapy and clinical outcome in variceal UGIB. The GBS ≤ 2 and FRS ≤ 1 identified low-risk non-variceal UGIB patients for death and re-bleeding during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to non-variceal UGIB, the GBS, FRS, and PRS were not precise scores for assessing the need for therapy, mortality, and re-bleeding during admission in variceal UGIB.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the complications, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need of clinical intervention, several risk scores have been proposed and their use consistently recommended by international guidelines. The use of risk scoring systems in early assessment of patients suffering from UGIB may be useful to distinguish high-risks patients, who may need clinical intervention and hospitalization, from low risk patients with a lower chance of developing complications, in which management as outpatients can be considered. Although several scores have been published and validated for predicting different outcomes, the most frequently cited ones are the Rockall score and the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS). While Rockall score, which incorporates clinical and endoscopic variables, has been validated to predict mortality, the GBS, which is based on clinical and laboratorial parameters, has been studied to predict the need of clinical intervention. Despite the advantages previously reported, their use in clinical decisions is still limited. This review describes the different risk scores used in the UGIB setting, highlights the most important research, explains why and when their use may be helpful, reflects on the problems that remain unresolved and guides future research with practical impact.

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.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) has been developed to assess the need for treatment in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) presenting at emergency departments (EDs). We aimed (a) to determine the validity of the GBS and Rockall scoring systems for prediction of need for treatment and (b) to identify the optimal cut-off value of the GBS.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based, prospective multicenter study of 520 consecutive patients presenting with acute UGIH at EDs of three hospitals. The accuracy of GBS and Rockall scores in predicting the need for treatment (i.e. endoscopic, surgical, or radiological intervention and blood transfusion) was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the GBS had a good discriminative ability to determine the need for treatment in patients with acute UGIH (area under the curve: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-0.91). The GBS was superior to both the clinical Rockall and the full Rockall score in predicting the need for treatment (area under the curve: 0.86 vs. 0.70 vs. 0.77). At a cut-off value of up to 2, the GBS had the optimal combination of sensitivity (99.4%) and specificity (42.4%).

CONCLUSION

The GBS is superior compared with both Rockall scores in predicting the need for treatment in patients with suspected acute UGIH presenting at EDs in the Netherlands. Patients with a GBS of 2 or less form a subgroup of low-risk patients. These low-risk patients are eligible for outpatient management, which might reduce hospital admissions and healthcare costs.

Does Preendoscopy Rockall Score Safely Identify Low Risk Patients following Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage?

Objective. To determine if preendoscopy Rockall score (PERS) enables safe outpatient management of New Zealanders with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). Methods. Retrospective analysis of adults with UGIH over 59 consecutive months. PERS, diagnosis, demographics, need for endoscopic therapy, transfusion or surgery and 30-day mortality and 14-day rebleeding rate, and sensitivity and specificity of PERS for enabling safe discharge preendoscopy were calculated. Results. 424 admissions with UGIH. Median age was 74.3 years (range 19–93 years), with 55.1% being males. 30-day mortality was 4.6% and 14-day rebleeding rate was 6.0%. Intervention was required in 181 (46.6%): blood transfusion (147 : 37.9%), endoscopic intervention (75 : 19.3%), and surgery (8 : 2.1%). 42 (10.8%) had PERS = 0 with intervention required in 15 (35.7%). Females more frequently required intervention, OR 1.73 (CI: 1.12–2.69). PERS did not predict intervention but did predict 30-day mortality: each point increase equated to an increase in mortality of OR 1.46 (CI: 1.11–1.92). Taking NSAIDs/aspirin reduced 30-day mortality, OR 0.22 (CI: 0.08–0.60). Conclusion. PERS identifies 10.8% of those with UGIH as low risk but 35.7% required intervention or died. It has a limited role in assessing these patients and should not be used to identify those suitable for outpatient endoscopy.

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.

A national survey on the initial management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

GOALS

To evaluate the initial management of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Various guidelines have addressed the initial management of upper GI bleeding, but the extent to which these guidelines are followed in clinical practice is unknown.

STUDY

We conducted a national survey of emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists practicing in hospitals affiliated with an ACGME-accredited gastroenterology fellowship. Participants rated their agreement and adherence to 9 preendoscopic quality indicators for the initial management of upper GI bleeding. Awareness, use, and barriers to the use of early prognostic risk scores were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 surveys were completed, with an estimated response rate of 11.3%. Gastroenterologists and trainees agreed with the quality indicators more than nongastroenterologists and attending physicians, respectively. There was no difference in the application of the quality indicators by specialty or clinical position. Among all physicians, 53% had ever heard of and 30% had ever used an upper GI bleeding risk score. More gastroenterologists than nongastroenterologists had heard of (82% vs. 44%, P<0.001) and used (51% vs. 23%, P<0.001) a risk score. There was no difference between attending physicians and trainees. Gastroenterologists and attending physicians more often cited lack of utility as a reason to not use risk scores, whereas nongastroenterologists and trainees more often cited lack of knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Among emergency physicians, internists, and gastroenterologists in the United States, agreement with upper GI bleeding initial management guidelines was high but adherence--especially pertaining to the use of risk scores--was low.

Use of glasgow-blatchford bleeding score reduces hospital stay duration and costs for patients with low-risk upper GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a frequent cause of hospitalization. Its severity may be assessed before endoscopy using the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), a score validated to identify patients requiring clinical intervention. The aim of this study was to assess whether the GBS was effective for shortening hospital stay and reducing costs in patients with an UGI bleeding predicted at low risk of requiring clinical intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive outpatients presenting with UGI bleeding at our hospital were prospectively included. In the observational study phase, UGI endoscopy was performed in all patients according to routine clinical practice. In the interventional study phase, patients with a GBS of 0 were discharged with an appointment for an outpatient UGI endoscopy. All patients had follow-up at 7 and 30 days. Need for clinical intervention was defined as performance of endoscopic hemostasis, blood transfusion or surgery. Results Two-hundred and eight patients were included, 104 in each study phase; complete follow-up was obtained in 201 patients. GBS varied from 0 to 18, with 15 (14 %) and 11 (11 %) patients having a GBS of 0 in the observational and interventional study phase, respectively. For patients with a GBS of 0, hospital stay was shorter (6 versus 19 h, P < 0.01), and costs were lower (845 EUR versus 1272 EUR, P = 0.002) in the interventional versus the observational study phase. For patients with a GBS > 0, hospital stay duration did not significantly differ between study phases (189 versus 207 h, P = 0.726). No adverse event was observed in the patients sent home with a GBS of 0 during the interventional study phase. Conclusions Implementing the GBS as a tool for triage of hospital outpatients who present with UGI bleeding allowed us to identify those who could safely be discharged for ambulatory management. Implementing this change in the hospital strategy significantly shortened hospital stay and decreased management costs.

Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the utility of the Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (GBS) in hospitalized patients with upper GI hemorrhage are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of the GBS in predicting clinical outcomes and the need for interventions in patients with upper GI hemorrhage.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care endoscopic center.

PATIENTS

Between July 2010 and July 2012, 888 consecutive hospitalized patients managed for upper GI hemorrhage were entered into the study.

INTERVENTION

GBS and Rockall scores.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

GBS and Rockall scores were prospectively calculated. The performance of these scores to predict the need for interventions and outcomes was assessed by using a receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

Endoscopy was performed in 708 patients (80%). A total of 286 patients (40.3%) required endoscopic therapy, and 29 patients (3.8%) underwent surgery. GBS and post-endoscopy Rockall scores (post-E RS) were superior to pre-endoscopy Rockall scores in predicting the need for endoscopic therapy (area under the curve [AUC] 0.76 vs 0.76 vs 0.66, respectively) and rebleeding (AUC 0.71 vs 0.64 vs 0.57). The GBS was superior to Rockall scores in predicting the need for blood transfusion (AUC 0.81 vs 0.70 vs 0.68) and surgery (AUC 0.71 vs 0.64 vs 0.51). Patients with GBS scores ≤ 3 did not require intervention.

LIMITATIONS

Subjective decision making as to need for endoscopic therapy and blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

Compared with post-E RS, the GBS was superior in predicting the need for blood transfusion and surgery in hospitalized patients with upper GI hemorrhage and was equivalent in predicting the need for endoscopic therapy, rebleeding, and death. There are potential cutoff GBS scores that allow risk stratification for upper GI hemorrhage, which warrant further evaluation.

Urgent endoscopy in severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: does the Glasgow-Blatchford score help endoscopists?

OBJECTIVE

The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) has been validated to select severe patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH). The aim was to compare the yield of the triage based on the GBS with an endoscopist' decision to perform an urgent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in newly admitted patients and inpatients with UGIH in the setting of an endoscopy on-duty service in 13 tertiary care centers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

During a 6-month period, GBS and patient data were collected for all patients with non-variceal UGIH for whom an UGIE was requested in emergency. If patients experienced severe endoscopic lesion, surgery or death, they were categorized as patients who had been at need for urgent UGIE.

RESULTS

The 102 UGIH patients included (mean age 62, men 73%) had a median GBS of 12 (range 0-21), significantly lower for new patients compared with inpatients (11, range 0-21 vs. 14, range 2-21, respectively, p = 0.001). If triage for urgent UGIE had followed the GBS, no more patients would have had an urgent UGIE compared with what endoscopists performed (99/102 (97%) vs. 92/102 (90%), respectively, p = 0.09). Sensitivity for the detection of patients who needed an UGIE was no different with the GBS than endoscopists (98% vs. 98%, respectively, p = 0.10) and both showed insufficient specificity (4% and 19%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The GBS does not detect more patients at need for urgent UGIE than on-duty endoscopists. Both methods lead to numerous unjustified UGIEs. A score that would equally help endoscopists in their decision to intervene urgently is still warranted.