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, 1012consecutive 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 vs0.63, respectively), but the GBS best predicted need for hospital-based intervention or 30-d mortality(AUROC0.84 vs 0.57 vs 0.64), rebleeding(AUROC 0.75 vs 0.61 vs 0.53), need for blood transfusion(AUROC 0.83 vs0.63 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.

Management of Peptic Ulcer Bleeding Refractory to Endoscopic Treatment

Background: Before the advent of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE), emergency surgery was the only choice for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic therapy. This study compared the effectiveness of TAE and surgery in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 116 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment at our institution. Eighty-three cases were treated with surgery, and 33 cases were managed with TAE. Clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: There were no differences between groups with respect to the mortality rate (p > 0.05), length of hospital stay, or medical diseases related to mortality. The TAE group exhibited a significantly higher rebleeding rate (p < 0.05). Rebleeding predominantly occurred in patients with type Ia peptic ulcers (Forrest classification) irrespective of the treatment approach. The rebleeding rates in such patents were 30.2% and 56.3% in the surgery and TAE groups, respectively. Patients with rebleeding after further therapy showed high mortality rates (68.6%). The rebleeding rate was not significantly different between the subgroups of patients with type Ia lesions, although there was a higher mortality rate in the TAE group (27.9% vs. 75%, p = 0.001). Conclusions: TAE may be the first-choice therapy for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment, whereas emergency surgery may be used as an alternative in patients with type Ia bleeding at institutions with no 24-hour radiology service or when no experienced radiologist is available.