Upper gastrointestinal bleeding(UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the compli-cations, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need ...Upper gastrointestinal bleeding(UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the compli-cations, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need of clinical intervention, several risk scores have been proposed and their use consistently recommended by international guidelines. The use of risk scoring systems in early assessment of patients suffering from UGIB may be useful to distinguish high-risks patients, who may need clinical intervention and hospitalization, from low risk patients with a lower chance of developing complications, in which management as outpatients can be considered. Although several scores have been published and validated for predicting different outcomes, the most frequently cited ones are the Rockall score and the Glasgow Blatchford score(GBS). While Rockall score, which incorporates clinical and endoscopic variables, has been validated to predict mortality, the GBS, which is based on clinical and laboratorial parameters, has been studied to predict the need of clinical intervention. Despite the advantages previously reported, their use in clinical decisions is still limited. This review describes the different risk scores used in the UGIB setting, highlights the most important research, explains why and when their use may be helpful, reflects on the problems that remain unresolved and guides future research with practical impact.展开更多
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 Ja...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.展开更多
文摘Upper gastrointestinal bleeding(UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the compli-cations, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need of clinical intervention, several risk scores have been proposed and their use consistently recommended by international guidelines. The use of risk scoring systems in early assessment of patients suffering from UGIB may be useful to distinguish high-risks patients, who may need clinical intervention and hospitalization, from low risk patients with a lower chance of developing complications, in which management as outpatients can be considered. Although several scores have been published and validated for predicting different outcomes, the most frequently cited ones are the Rockall score and the Glasgow Blatchford score(GBS). While Rockall score, which incorporates clinical and endoscopic variables, has been validated to predict mortality, the GBS, which is based on clinical and laboratorial parameters, has been studied to predict the need of clinical intervention. Despite the advantages previously reported, their use in clinical decisions is still limited. This review describes the different risk scores used in the UGIB setting, highlights the most important research, explains why and when their use may be helpful, reflects on the problems that remain unresolved and guides future research with practical impact.
文摘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.
