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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Budimir, Ivan, Stojsavljević, Sanja, Baršić, Neven, Bišćanin, Alen, Mirošević, Gorana, Bohnec, Sven, Kirigin, Lora Stanka, Pavić, Tajana, Ljubičić, Neven
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