Cargando…

Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performances of the Glasgow–Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PRS), complete Rockall score (CRS), and Cedars–Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index (CSMCPI) in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tuncer, Hakan, Yardan, Turker, Akdemir, Hizir Ufuk, Ayyildiz, Talat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Professional Medical Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30034432
http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.343.14956
_version_ 1783339015344226304
author Tuncer, Hakan
Yardan, Turker
Akdemir, Hizir Ufuk
Ayyildiz, Talat
author_facet Tuncer, Hakan
Yardan, Turker
Akdemir, Hizir Ufuk
Ayyildiz, Talat
author_sort Tuncer, Hakan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performances of the Glasgow–Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PRS), complete Rockall score (CRS), and Cedars–Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index (CSMCPI) in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). METHODS: Patients who were admitted to the emergency department because of UGIB and underwent endoscopy within the first 24 hour were included in this study. The GBS, PRS, CRS, and CSMCPI were propectively calculated. The performances of these scores were assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included in this study. For the prediction of high-risk patients, area under the curve (AUC) was obtained for GBS (0.912), PRS (0.968), CRS (0.991), and CSMCPI (0.918). For the prediction of rebleeding, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.656), PRS (0.625), CRS (0.701), and CSMCPI (0.612). For the prediction of 30-day mortality, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.658), PRS (0.757), CRS (0.823), and CSMCPI (0.745). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that effectiveness of CRS is higher than that of other scores in predicting high-risk patients, rebleeding and 30-day mortality in patients with UGIB.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6041537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Professional Medical Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60415372018-07-20 Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding Tuncer, Hakan Yardan, Turker Akdemir, Hizir Ufuk Ayyildiz, Talat Pak J Med Sci Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performances of the Glasgow–Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PRS), complete Rockall score (CRS), and Cedars–Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index (CSMCPI) in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). METHODS: Patients who were admitted to the emergency department because of UGIB and underwent endoscopy within the first 24 hour were included in this study. The GBS, PRS, CRS, and CSMCPI were propectively calculated. The performances of these scores were assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included in this study. For the prediction of high-risk patients, area under the curve (AUC) was obtained for GBS (0.912), PRS (0.968), CRS (0.991), and CSMCPI (0.918). For the prediction of rebleeding, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.656), PRS (0.625), CRS (0.701), and CSMCPI (0.612). For the prediction of 30-day mortality, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.658), PRS (0.757), CRS (0.823), and CSMCPI (0.745). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that effectiveness of CRS is higher than that of other scores in predicting high-risk patients, rebleeding and 30-day mortality in patients with UGIB. Professional Medical Publications 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6041537/ /pubmed/30034432 http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.343.14956 Text en Copyright: © Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tuncer, Hakan
Yardan, Turker
Akdemir, Hizir Ufuk
Ayyildiz, Talat
Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
title Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
title_full Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
title_fullStr Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
title_short Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
title_sort comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30034432
http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.343.14956
work_keys_str_mv AT tuncerhakan comparisonoffourscoringsystemsforriskstratificationofuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT yardanturker comparisonoffourscoringsystemsforriskstratificationofuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT akdemirhizirufuk comparisonoffourscoringsystemsforriskstratificationofuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT ayyildiztalat comparisonoffourscoringsystemsforriskstratificationofuppergastrointestinalbleeding