Clinical Risk Characteristics of Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Severity: A Multivariable Risk Analysis

The Clinical and Endoscopic Profiles of Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) and the Role of the Rockall Scoring System in Predicting Adverse Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the common emergencies seen by physicians. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy remains a crucial tool in the identification of UGIB.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to determine the clinical and endoscopic profiles of UGIB in an adult population.

METHODS

This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital (DMCH), Ludhiana, where 75 patients aged 18 years and above admitted to the hospital with a history of UGIB from July 1 to December 31, 2018, were enrolled in the study. After obtaining the demographic data, all patients underwent clinical examination, laboratory investigations, and video endoscopy. The Rockall scoring system was used to assess their prognosis.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 52.19±6.65 years. The majority (33%) were in the age group of 51-60 years. Of the study population, 82.7% were male and 17.3% were female. Chronic alcohol intake was found to be the most common risk factor, followed by drug intake. On upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, esophageal varices (65.3%) were the most common finding, followed by peptic ulcer disease (25.2%), gastric erosions (2.6%), gastroduodenitis (1.3%), Mallory-Weiss tear (1.3%), carcinoma stomach (1.3%), Camron's lesion (1.3%), and Dieulafoy's lesion (1.3%). Mortality attributed to UGIB was found to be 8%.

CONCLUSION

The present study reported portal hypertension as the most common cause of UGIB, while the most common endoscopic lesions reported were esophageal varices. The factors associated with poor prognosis were age >60 years, shock, respiratory failure, low hemoglobin, low platelet count, deranged international normalized ratio (INR), variceal bleed, renal failure, rebleed, Rockall score ≥ 8, and late endoscopy (>24 hours of admission). Urgent appropriate hospital management definitely helps to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with UGIB.

A prospective cohort study of patients presenting to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a common presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), and is associated with re-bleeding and significant mortality. Although several studies have described etiology and outcome of UGI bleeding, few have been done in the EDs.

Materials and Methods

This prospective observational cohort study included all patients presenting with hematemesis or melena, between June 2016 and January 2017 to the ED. Demographic data, risk factors, endoscopy findings and prognosticating scores were noted. Patients were followed up through telephonic communication after 3 months to assess re-bleeding rate and mortality.

Results

The study cohort included 210 patients with a male predominance (76.2%). The mean (SD) age was 51 (16.8) years. They presented with either hematemesis (33.8%), melena (28.6%), or both (37.6%). One third (35.7%) had variceal bleed, 21% had peptic ulcer disease (PUD), and 43.3%bled due to other etiology. UGI scopy was performed in 85.2% of patients with banding (25.1%) and sclerotherapy (14%) being the most frequently performed procedures. Endoscopic intervention was not required in 58.6%of patients. Packed red cells were transfused in 46.7% patients. The 48-h re-bleed rate among variceal bleeders was 5.3% and 11.4% among peptic ulcer bleeders. The 3-month re-bleeding rate was 42.9% and the 3-month mortality rate was 17.5% among the variceal bleeders and the same was 5.6% and 2.8%, respectively, among the peptic ulcer bleeders. The overall mortality was 12.4%.

Conclusions

Variceal bleeding and PUD were the predominant causes of UGI bleeding. Overall, a quarter of our patients had a re-bleed within 3 months, with majority being variceal bleeds.

Clinical mortality risk factors of variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a Malagasy surgical intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a dreadful complication of portal hypertension with a significant morbidity and mortality. Different prognostic scores can be used. However, in the local context of Madagascar, the completion of paraclinical investigations can be delayed by the limited financial means of patients. Hence, determining clinical mortality risk factors of variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding could be interesting. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical mortality risk factors of variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB).

METHOD

An observational, cohort retrospective study was conducted over an 8-year period (2010-2017), at the surgical intensive care unit of the J.R. Andrianavalona University Hospital, Antananarivo, in patients admitted for VUGIB confirmed by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and whose clinical examination was performed at admission. The primary endpoint was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify risk factors for ICU mortality, with OR defining odds ratio. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

1920 patients were admitted for gastrointestinal bleeding of any digestive causes; the source of bleeding was variceal in 269 patients (14%). The predominantly male population (sex ratio = 2.5), aged 47.1 ± 13.7 years was mostly American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 1 classification (58.4%). In 56.5% of patients, the gastrointestinal bleeding had not occurred before. The mortality rate was 16.0%. Three major clinical factors of mortality were identified: previous endoscopic band variceal ligation (OR = 12.57 [2.18-72.58], p = 0.005), tachycardia >120 bpm (OR = 2.91 [1.04-8.14], p = 0.041), and ascites (OR = 3.80 [1.85-7.81], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding may be life-threatening. The mortality scores are certainly useful; however, the identification of clinical factors is interesting in countries like Madagascar, pending the results of paraclinical investigations.

Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Severity Triage: Locally Derived Score May Outperform Existing Scoring Systems

Background

Scoring tools to predict need for intervention, re-bleeding and mortality of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) have been developed. It is inconclusive whether these tools are also appropriate for UGIH severity and/or urgency triage. The objective of the study was to compare the performances of the Blatchford score, the Rockall score, and the UGIH score on UGIH severity triage.

Methods

Retrospective 3-year data of UGIH patients (2009 - 2011) were collected. Patients were assigned to each of the three scoring systems based on their clinical characteristics required for the scoring systems. The score ranges of each scoring system were transformed into the same scale from 0 to 100. The score performances were compared by diagnostic indices, graphically presented with area under receiver operating curve (AuROC), discrimination curves, and statistically tested with Chi-squared tests.

Results

When focusing on the diagnostic indices, the local UGIH had similar sensitivity to, but better specificity than the Blatchford score in detecting mild UGIH. The sensitivity was better than and the specificity was less than the Blatchford score in detecting severe UGIH. The local UGIH score was better than the pre-endoscopic Rockall in almost all diagnostic indices. Focusing overall performances, the local UGIH score classified patients non-significantly better than the Blatchford: 89.3% vs. 87.9% for mild (P = 0.243), 87.2% vs. 85.0% for severe (P = 0.092), but significantly classified better than the pre-endoscopic Rockall score: 89.3% vs. 76.4% for mild (P < 0.001), and 87.2% vs. 81.2% for severe (P < 0.001). When exploring the discrimination curves, the Blatchford score classified more patients into the mild categories, and less into the severe categories than the local UGIH score. In contrast, the pre-endoscopic Rockall score classified less patients into the mild, but more into the severe than the local UGIH score.

Conclusion

Triaging UGIH patients into three severity levels in order to decide or set for endoscopy should apply the scoring system specifically developed for that purpose. Adopting other scores developed for other purposes may result in under- and/or over-estimations. The local UGIH score classified patients into three severity levels to help indicate endoscopy more efficiently than the Blatchford score and the pre-endoscopic Rockall score which was developed for different purposes.

Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Validation of the Severity Score

Background

A simple scoring system was developed earlier to classify patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage into mild, moderates and severe. To validate the derived simple UGIH severity scoring system to another set of data obtained from consecutive patients.

Methods

The score was developed earlier from data of patients with UGIH in 2009 - 2010. The same scoring system was assigned to another set of data from patients of the following year. Classification of patients into 3 urgency levels reflecting their severity was compared. Performance similarity of the score in the two sets of data was tested with a chi-squared test for homogeneity. The ability of the score to discriminate mild patients from moderate/severe, and to discriminate severe patients from mild/moderate was identified and compared with analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC).

Results

Patients from the validation data were similar to those from the development data in overall aspects. The severity of UGIH and the score distribution in the two sets were similar. The score successfully classified patients in the validation data into 3 severity levels similar to the development data (P = 0.381, chi-squared for homogeneity), and similarly discriminated mild patients from moderate/severe patients (P = 0.360, AuROC analysis), and similarly discriminated severe patients from mild/moderate patients (P = 0.589, AuROC analysis)

Conclusion

The simple scoring scheme developed earlier to classify UGIH patients into 3 severity/urgency levels performed similarly in the validation data obtained from patients in the following year. Advantages of the scoring scheme should be tested when applied to patient care to assure clinical adoption into routine practice.

Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Development of the Severity Score

Background

Emergency endoscopy for every patient with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage is not possible in many medical centers. Simple guidelines to select patients for emergency endoscopy are lacking. The aim of the present report is to develop a simple scoring system to classify upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) severity based on patient clinical profiles at the emergency departments.

Methods

Retrospective data of patients with UGIH in a university affiliated hospital were analyzed. Patients were criterion-classified into 3 severity levels: mild, moderate and severe. Clinical and laboratory information were compared among the 3 groups. Significant parameters were selected as indicators of severity. Coefficients of significant multivariable parameters were transformed into item scores, which added up as individual severity scores. The scores were used to classify patients into 3 urgency levels: non-urgent, urgent and emergent groups. Score-classification and criterion-classification were compared.

Results

Significant parameters in the model were age ≥ 60 years, pulse rate ≥ 100/min, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, blood urea nitrogen ≥ 35 mg/dL, presence of cirrhosis and hepatic failure. The score ranged from 0 to 27, and classifying patients into 3 urgency groups: non-urgent (score < 4, n = 215, 21.2%), urgent (score 4 - 16, n = 677, 66.9%) and emergent (score > 16, n = 121, 11.9%). The score correctly classified 81.4% of the patients into their original (criterion-classified) severity groups. Under-estimation (7.5%) and over-estimation (11.1%) were clinically acceptable.

Conclusions

Our UGIH severity scoring system classified patients into 3 urgency groups: non-urgent, urgent and emergent, with clinically acceptable small number of under- and over-estimations. Its discriminative ability and precision should be validated before adopting into clinical practice.