Medical care setting is associated with survival in acute upper gastro-intestinal bleeding: A cohort study

Derivation and validation of Re.Co.De death score risk in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Scores in upper GI bleeding (UGIB) are used to stratify death risk and need for hospitalization at admission, but a tool that incorporates dynamic changes during the hospital stay is lacking. We aimed to develop a death risk score that considers changes in clinical status during hospitalization and compare its performance with existing ones.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort study enrolling patients with UGIB in 50 Italian hospitals from January 2014 to December 2015 was conducted. Data were collected and used to develop a risk score using logistic regression analyses. Performance curves (area under the receiver-operating characteristic [AUROC] curves), sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, and outcomes classified as low, intermediate, and high death risk were calculated. The score's performance was externally validated and then compared with other scores.

RESULTS

We included 1852 patients with nonvariceal UGIB in the development cohort and 912 in the validation cohorts. The new score, which we named the Re.Co.De (rebleeding-comorbidities-deteriorating) score, included 10 variables depicting the changes in clinical conditions while in the hospital. The mortality AUROC curves were .93 (95% confidence interval, .91-.96) in the derivation cohort and .94 (95% confidence interval, .91-.98) in validation cohort. In a comparison of AUROC curves with other scores, the new score showed a significant performance compared with pre- and postendoscopy scores. Patients with low and high scores had 30-day mortality rates of .001% and 48.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Re.Co.De score has a higher performance for predicting mortality in patients with UGIB compared with other scores, correctly identifying patients at low and high death risk while in the hospital through a dynamic re-evaluation of clinical status.

No evidence of "weekend effect" in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Italy: data from a nationwide prospective registry

OBJECTIVES

The literature offers conflicting information about 'weekend effect' in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). Aim of our study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients admitted for AUGIB during the weekend or on weekdays in Italy.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a prospective registry of AUGIB (either nonvariceal, NV-AUGIB or variceal, V-AUGIB) from 50 Italian hospitals from January 2014 to December 2015. Mortality, rebleeding, need for salvage procedures and length of hospitalization were compared among patients admitted during the weekend or on weekdays.

RESULTS

In total 2599 patients (mean age 67.4 ± 15.0 years, 69.2% males) were included, 2119 (81.5%) with NV-AUGIB and 480 (18.5%) with V-AUGIB. Totally 494 patients with NV-AUGIB (23.3%) and 129 patients with V-AUGIB (20.7%) were admitted during the weekend. The two study groups were similar in terms of physical status (American Society of Anesthesiologists score, comorbidities) and bleeding-specific prognostic scores. We did not find differences in terms of mortality (5.6 vs. 4.9%; P = 0.48), rebleeding (5.9 vs. 5.1%; P = 0.39), need for salvage procedures (4.0 vs. 3.6%; P = 0.67) or duration of hospitalization (8.5 ± 6.9 vs. 8.3 ± 7.2 days; P = 0.58) between patients admitted during weekend or weekdays. Considering separately NV-AUGIB and V-AUGIB, the only difference found in clinical outcomes was a higher rebleeding risk in patients with V-AUGIB admitted during the weekend (13.2 vs. 7.4%; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from our large, prospective multicenter registry shows that in Italy there is no significant 'weekend effect' for either NV- or V-AUGIB. Our results show that the Italian hospital network is efficient and able to provide adequate care and an effective therapeutic endoscopy even during the weekend.

Comparison of assessment tools in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: which one for which decision

BACKGROUND

Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) remains a common emergency with significant mortality. Scores help triage patients, but it is still unclear which score should be used in the different decision-making moments to identify patients at high or low death risk. We aimed to compare the overall performances of the most validated scores and their cut-off performance to identify patients at low and high death risk. The secondary outcome was to compare the scores' performance for predicting therapeutic endoscopy, the need for transfusion(s), rebleeding, and surgery/interventional radiology.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study, including consecutive UGIB patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals. We collected information to calculate the Rockall, the Progetto Nazionale Endoscopia Digestiva (PNED), the AIMS65, the Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS), and the Age, Blood tests, Comorbidities (ABC) scores, together with demographic figures, clinical data, and outcomes.

RESULTS

We obtained complete data of 2307 outpatients, including 1887 non-variceal and 420 variceal bleeders. Our cohort's mean age was 67.5 years, with a prevalence of male gender (69%). The GBS has the best overall performance (ROC 0.74) compared to the other scores in identifying low-risk patients (p < .001). At the cut-off 0-1, both GBS and ABC scores provide the highest PPV (100%) for low-risk patients. ABC and PNED scores are the most useful ones (for AUC >80) to assess the high-risk patients for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

At admission, GBS and ABC scores identify low-risk patients suitable for outpatient management, while PNED and ABC scores identify high-risk patients. During hospitalization, the PNED score should be used to re-assess the mortality risk if a modification of clinical status occurs.

The "Hub and Spoke" model has no effect on mortality in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

the lack of standardized pathways for patients with gastrointestinal bleeding may have led to differences in their management and inequity to medical care access. The "Hub & Spoke" model was adopted to fill this gap in many disciplines, but, to our knowledge, no data exist on its efficacy on mortality in GI bleeding. We aimed to evaluate if the "Hub & Spoke" organizational model has an impact on mortality risk from UGIB.

METHODS

from January 2014 to December 2015, 3324 consecutive patients admitted for UGIB in 50 Italian hospitals were enrolled (1977 patients in hospitals within the "Hub & Spoke" network for digestive hemorrhagic emergency and 1347 in hospitals outside the "Hub & Spoke" network). Clinical, endoscopic and organizational data were recorded.

RESULTS

we observed no differences in mortality between patients admitted to hospitals included or not included in the "Hub & Spoke" network (5.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.3). On multivariate analysis, admission in gastroenterology wards (OR 0.61, p = 0.001) or an academic hospital (OR 0.65, p < 0.056) were independent protective factors while being in "Hub & Spoke" organization system did not affect mortality (OR 1.09, p = 0.57).

CONCLUSION

the "Hub & Spoke" model per sé does not impact on mortality while being treated in academic hospital or gastroenterology wards improved survival.