The Performance of a Modified Glasgow Blatchford Score in Predicting Clinical Interventions in Patients with Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Vietnamese Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB.

AREA COVERED

A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making.

EXPERT OPINION

The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.

External validation of Glasgow-Blatchford, modified Glasgow-Blatchford and CANUKA scores to identify low-risk patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding in emergency departments: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a medical emergency with an approximate mortality of 10%, which results in a high hospitalisation rate. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) is recommended to identify low-risk patients who can be discharged from the emergency department (ED). A modified GBS (mGBS) and CANUKA score have recently been proposed but have not been well studied. The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of GBS, mGBS or CANUKA score could identify patients at low risk of death or need for intervention.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective study was performed including patients with suspected UGIB visiting the ED of Saint-Antoine hospital (Paris, France) from January 2016 to December 2018. Demographic and medical data needed to calculate GBS and CANUKA were collected, as well as outcomes data. Need for intervention was defined as the need for blood transfusion, endoscopic haemostasis or rebleeding within 7 days. In-hospital mortality was also collected. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were measured for the score thresholds of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 386 patients were included. Median age was 60 years (38-78), 65.3% (n=252) were male and 60% (n=233) were hospitalised. A GBS≤1, mGBS=0 and CANUKA≤2 categorised 24.9%, 18.2% and 18.9% of patients as low risk, respectively. There was a need for intervention in 2.2%, 4.6% and 0% of those patients categorised as low risk by GBS, mGBS and CANUKA, respectively. No deaths occurred in the patients identified as low risk, regardless of the score used. All scores had a high sensitivity and negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with UGIB, the use of a GBS≤1 or CANUKA score ≤2 appears to be safe for identifying patients at low risk of death or need for intervention.

Prediction of the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and new score model: a retrospective study

Background

Gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the major gastrointestinal diseases. In this study, our objective was to compare Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), AIMS65 score, MAP score, Modified GBS, and Iino score as outcome measures for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In addition, we extracted factors associated with hemostatic procedures including endoscopy, and proposed a new robust score model.

Methods

From January 2015 to December 2019, 675 patients with symptoms such as hematemesis who visited the National Hospital Organization Disaster Medical Center and underwent urgent upper endoscopy with diagnosis of suspected non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated the GBS, AIMS65 score, MAP score, Modified GBS, and Iino score, and assessed the outcomes of patients requiring hemostatic treatments at the subsequent emergency endoscopy. We performed logistic regression analysis of factors related to endoscopic hemostasis and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, created a new score model, and evaluated the prediction of hemostatic treatment and mortality in the new score and the existing scores.

Results

The factors associated with endoscopic treatment were hematemesis, heart rate, HB (hemoglobin), blood pressure, blood urea nitrogen (BUN). Based on these predictors and the partial regression coefficients, a new score named H3B2 (using the initial letters of hematemesis, heart rate, HB, blood pressure, and BUN) was generated. H3B2 score was slightly more discriminatory compared to GBS and Modified GBS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC): 0.73 versus 0.721 and 0.7128, respectively) in predicting hemostatic treatment in emergency endoscopy. The H3B2 score also showed satisfactory prediction accuracy for subsequent deaths (AUROC: 0.6857. P < 0.001).

Conclusions

We proposed a new score, the H3B2 score, consisting of simple and objective indices in cases of suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The H3B2 score is useful in identifying high-risk patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding who require urgent hemostatic treatment including emergency endoscopy.

Hypocalcemia is associated with adverse clinical course in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NV-UGIB) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Early and efficient risk stratification can facilitate management and improve outcomes. We aimed to determine whether the level of ionized calcium (Ca⁺⁺), an essential co-factor in the coagulation cascade, is associated with the severity of bleeding and the need for advanced interventions among these patients. This was a retrospective single-center cohort study of all patients admitted due to NV-UGIB. The primary outcome was transfusion of ≥ 2 packed red blood cells, arterial embolization, or emergency surgery. Secondary outcomes included (1) transfusion of ≥ 2 packed red blood cells, (2) arterial embolization, or emergency surgery, and (3) all-cause in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine whether Ca⁺⁺ was an independent predictor of these adverse outcomes. 1345 patients were included. Hypocalcemia was recorded in 604 (44.9%) patients. The rates of primary adverse outcome were significantly higher in the hypocalcemic group, 14.4% vs. 5.1%, p < 0.001. Secondary outcomes-multiple transfusions, need for angiography or surgery, and mortality were also increased (9.9% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001, 5.3% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.03, and 33.3% vs. 24.7%, p < 0.001, respectively). Hypocalcemia was an independent predictor of primary and all the secondary outcomes, except mortality. Hypocalcemia in high-risk hospitalized patients with NV-UGIB is common and independently associated with adverse outcomes. Ca⁺⁺ monitoring in this population may facilitate the rapid identification of high-risk patients. Trials are needed to assess whether correction of hypocalcemia will lead to improved outcomes.

Massive transfusion in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a new scoring system

Background: Massive transfusion in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) was not investigated. We developed a new scoring system to predict massive transfusion and to enhance care and early resource mobilization. Methods: Massive transfusion was defined as transfusion with ≥10 units of red blood cells within the first 24 h. Data were extracted from a 10-year, six-hospital database. Logistic regression was applied to derive a risk score for massive transfusion using data from 2006 to 2010, in 24,736 patients (developmental cohort). The score was then validated using data from 2011 to 2015 in 27,449 patients (validation cohort). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was performed to assess prediction accuracy. Results: Five characteristics were independently associated (p < .001) with massive transfusion: presence of band-form cells among white blood cells (band form >0), international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5, pulse >100 beats per minute or systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (shock), haemoglobin <8.0 g/dL and endoscopic therapy. The new scoring system successfully discriminated well between UGIB patients requiring massive transfusion and those who did not in both cohorts (AUROC: 0.831, 95%CI: 0.827-0.836; AUROC: 0.822, 95% CI: 0.817-0.826, respectively). Conclusions: The new scoring system predicts massive transfusion requirement in patients with UGIB well. Key messages Massive transfusion is a life-saving management in massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding. How to identify patients requiring massive transfusion in upper gastrointestinal bleeding is poorly documented. Approximately 3.9% of upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients require massive transfusion. A new scoring system is developed to identify patients requiring massive transfusion with high accuracy.

Both Full Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Modified Glasgow-Blatchford Score Predict the Need for Intervention and Mortality in Patients with Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) has been developed for risk stratification in management of acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, the performance of GBS in patients with lower GI bleeding is unknown.

AIM

To evaluate the performance of full or modified GBS and modified GBS in prediction of major clinical outcomes in patients with lower GI bleeding.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients admitted to a tertiary care center with either non-variceal upper GI bleeding or lower GI bleeding was conducted. The full and modified GBS were calculated for all patients. The primary outcome was a combined outcome of inpatient mortality, need for endoscopic, surgical, or radiologic procedure to control the bleed or treat the underlying source, and need for blood transfusion.

RESULTS

A total of 1026 patients (562 cases for upper GI and 464 cases for lower GI) were included in the study. Hospital-based interventions and mortality were significantly higher in upper GI bleeding group. The performance of the full GBS in lower GI bleeding (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82) was comparable to full GBS in upper GI bleeding (AUROC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81) in predicting the primary outcome. Similarly, the performance of modified GBS in lower GI bleeding was shown to be comparable to modified GBS in upper GI bleeding (AUROC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.83 vs. AUROC 0.76 95% CI 0.72-0.80).

CONCLUSION

In patients with lower GI bleeding, both full GBS and modified GBS can predict the need for hospital-based interventions and mortality.

Full and Modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score in Predicting the Outcome of Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study

INTRODUCTION

Screening of high risk patients and accelerating their treatment measures can reduce the burden of the disease caused by acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This study aimed to compare the full and modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS and mGBS) in prediction of in-hospital outcomes of upper GI bleeding.

METHODS

In the present retrospective cross-sectional study, the accuracy of GBS and mGBS models were compared in predicting the outcome of patients over 18 years of age with acute upper GI bleeding confirmed via endoscopy, presenting to the emergency departments of 3 teaching hospitals during 4 years.

RESULTS

330 cases with the mean age of 59.07 ± 19.00 years entered the study (63.60% male). Area under the curve of GBS and mGBS scoring systems were 0.691 and 0.703, respectively, in prediction of re-bleeding (p = 0.219), 0.562 and 0.563 regarding need for surgery (p = 0.978), 0.549 and 0.542 for endoscopic intervention (p = 0.505), and 0.767 and 0.770 regarding blood transfusion (p = 0.753). Area under the ROC curve of GBS scoring system regarding need for hospitalization in intensive care unit (0.589 vs. 0.563; p = 0.035) and mortality (0.597 vs. 0.564; p = 0.011) was better but the superiority was not clinically significant.

CONCLUSION

GBS and mGBS scoring systems have similar accuracy in prediction of the probability of re-bleeding, need for blood transfusion, surgery and endoscopic intervention, hospitalization in intensive care unit, and mortality of patients with acute upper GI bleeding.

Evaluation of scoring models for identifying the need for therapeutic intervention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A new prediction score model for Japanese patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Multiple scoring systems have been developed to predict outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We determined how well these and a newly established scoring model predict the need for therapeutic intervention, excluding transfusion, in Japanese patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

We reviewed data from 212 consecutive patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients requiring endoscopic intervention, operation, or interventional radiology were allocated to the therapeutic intervention group. Firstly, we compared areas under the curve for the Glasgow-Blatchford, Clinical Rockall, and AIMS65 scores. Secondly, the scores and factors likely associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding were analyzed with a logistic regression analysis to form a new scoring model. Thirdly, the new model and the existing model were investigated to evaluate their usefulness.

RESULTS

Therapeutic intervention was required in 109 patients (51.4%). The Glasgow-Blatchford score was superior to both the Clinical Rockall and AIMS65 scores for predicting therapeutic intervention need (area under the curve, 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.81] vs 0.53 [0.46-0.61] and 0.52 [0.44-0.60], respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis retained seven significant predictors in the model: systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, syncope, hematemesis, hemoglobin <10 g/dL, blood urea nitrogen ≥22.4 mg/dL, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤ 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² , and antiplatelet medication. Based on these variables, we established a new scoring model with superior discrimination to those of existing scoring systems (area under the curve, 0.85 [0.80-0.90]).

CONCLUSION

We developed a superior scoring model for identifying therapeutic intervention need in Japanese patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

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.