Cargando…
Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use?
AIM: To compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS) and Baylor bleeding score (BBS) in predicting clinical outcomes and need for interventions in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2013, 1012 consecutive patients admitted with peptic u...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29151699 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i41.7450 |
_version_ | 1783278690409381888 |
---|---|
author | Budimir, Ivan Stojsavljević, Sanja Baršić, Neven Bišćanin, Alen Mirošević, Gorana Bohnec, Sven Kirigin, Lora Stanka Pavić, Tajana Ljubičić, Neven |
author_facet | Budimir, Ivan Stojsavljević, Sanja Baršić, Neven Bišćanin, Alen Mirošević, Gorana Bohnec, Sven Kirigin, Lora Stanka Pavić, Tajana Ljubičić, Neven |
author_sort | Budimir, Ivan |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: To compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS) and Baylor bleeding score (BBS) in predicting clinical outcomes and need for interventions in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2013, 1012 consecutive patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) were prospectively followed. The pre-endoscopic RS, BBS and GBS, as well as the post-endoscopic diagnostic scores (RS and BBS) were calculated for all patients according to their urgent upper endoscopy findings. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics (AUROC) curves were calculated for the prediction of lethal outcome, rebleeding, needs for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention, and the optimal cutoff values were evaluated. RESULTS: PUB accounted for 41.9% of all upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, 5.2% patients died and 5.4% patients underwent surgery. By comparing the AUROC curves of the aforementioned pre-endoscopic scores, the RS best predicted lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.67 vs 0.63, respectively), but the GBS best predicted need for hospital-based intervention or 30-d mortality (AUROC 0.84 vs 0.57 vs 0.64), rebleeding (AUROC 0.75 vs 0.61 vs 0.53), need for blood transfusion (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.63 vs 0.58) and surgical intervention (0.82 vs 0.63 vs 0.52) The post-endoscopic RS was also better than the post-endoscopic BBS in predicting lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.69, respectively). CONCLUSION: The RS is the best predictor of mortality and the GBS is the best predictor of rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention in patients with PUB. There is no one 'perfect score' and we suggest that these two tests be used concomitantly. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5685851 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Baishideng Publishing Group Inc |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56858512017-11-17 Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? Budimir, Ivan Stojsavljević, Sanja Baršić, Neven Bišćanin, Alen Mirošević, Gorana Bohnec, Sven Kirigin, Lora Stanka Pavić, Tajana Ljubičić, Neven World J Gastroenterol Prospective Study AIM: To compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS) and Baylor bleeding score (BBS) in predicting clinical outcomes and need for interventions in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2013, 1012 consecutive patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) were prospectively followed. The pre-endoscopic RS, BBS and GBS, as well as the post-endoscopic diagnostic scores (RS and BBS) were calculated for all patients according to their urgent upper endoscopy findings. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics (AUROC) curves were calculated for the prediction of lethal outcome, rebleeding, needs for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention, and the optimal cutoff values were evaluated. RESULTS: PUB accounted for 41.9% of all upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, 5.2% patients died and 5.4% patients underwent surgery. By comparing the AUROC curves of the aforementioned pre-endoscopic scores, the RS best predicted lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.67 vs 0.63, respectively), but the GBS best predicted need for hospital-based intervention or 30-d mortality (AUROC 0.84 vs 0.57 vs 0.64), rebleeding (AUROC 0.75 vs 0.61 vs 0.53), need for blood transfusion (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.63 vs 0.58) and surgical intervention (0.82 vs 0.63 vs 0.52) The post-endoscopic RS was also better than the post-endoscopic BBS in predicting lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.69, respectively). CONCLUSION: The RS is the best predictor of mortality and the GBS is the best predictor of rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention in patients with PUB. There is no one 'perfect score' and we suggest that these two tests be used concomitantly. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2017-11-07 2017-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5685851/ /pubmed/29151699 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i41.7450 Text en ©The Author(s) 2017. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. |
spellingShingle | Prospective Study Budimir, Ivan Stojsavljević, Sanja Baršić, Neven Bišćanin, Alen Mirošević, Gorana Bohnec, Sven Kirigin, Lora Stanka Pavić, Tajana Ljubičić, Neven Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? |
title | Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? |
title_full | Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? |
title_fullStr | Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? |
title_full_unstemmed | Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? |
title_short | Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: Which one to use? |
title_sort | scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: which one to use? |
topic | Prospective Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29151699 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i41.7450 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT budimirivan scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT stojsavljevicsanja scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT barsicneven scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT biscaninalen scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT mirosevicgorana scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT bohnecsven scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT kiriginlorastanka scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT pavictajana scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse AT ljubicicneven scoringsystemsforpepticulcerbleedingwhichonetouse |