Validation of a New Risk Score System for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

doi:10.21203/rs.2.14578/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Validation of a New Risk Score System for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.14578/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 17 Jun, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Gastroenterology →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background Recently, a new international bleeding score was developed to predict 30-day hospital mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, the efficacy of this newly developed scoring system has not been extensively investigated. We aimed to validate a new scoring system for predicting 30-day mortality in patients with non-variceal UGIB and determine whether a higher score is associated with re-bleeding, length of hospital stay and endoscopic failure.

Methods A retrospective study was performed on 905 cases with acute non-varieal UGIB who were examined in our hospital between January 2013 and December 2017. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic findings, re-bleeding, admission, and mortality were reviewed. The 30-day mortality rate of the new international bleeding risk score was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic curves and compared to the pre-endoscopy Rockall score, AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford score, and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva score. To verify the variable for the 30-day mortality of the new scoring system, we performed multivariate logistic regression using our data and further analyzed the score items.

Results Compared with other scoring systems, the new international bleeding scoring system showed higher receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve values in predicting mortality. (area under ROC curve 0.832; [95% confidence interval (CI)]) Multivariate analysis was performed using our data, the 30-day mortality rate was related to multiple comorbidities, BUN, creatinine, albumin, syncope at first visit, and endoscopic failure at first admission within 24 hours. In addition, in the new high score group, relatively long hospital stays, re-bleeding, and endoscopic failure were observed.

Conclusion The new international bleeding score could predict 30-day mortality better than the other scoring systems. High-risk patients can be screened using this new scoring system to predict 30-day mortality. The use of this scoring system seems to improve the outcomes of non-variceal UGIB patients through proper management and intervention.

Gastroenterology & Hepatology

gastrointestinal bleeding

mortality

risk assessment

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, with an incidence of 84–160 cases per 100,000 individuals and a mortality rate of approximately 10%.¹ More than 70% of AUGIB cases are non-variceal UGIB (NVUGIB), and peptic ulcer bleeding is the main cause of NVUGIB. Despite the development of endoscopic therapies and pharmacological management, NVUGIB is still associated with considerable rates of mortality, and morbidity, and high medical expenses.^2–5

The International Consensus Recommendations on the management of patients with NVUGIB recommend “early risk stratification” using validated prognostic scales.⁶A number of scoring systems have been devised to predict the outcome of patients with AUGIB, including the Rockall⁷(RS), pre-endoscopic Rockall⁸(pre-RS), Glasgow-Blatchford⁹(GBS), AIMS65^{10, 11}, and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva (PNED)¹²scores. There have been many studies on the outcomes of UGIB and continued study on which scoring systems can better predict mortality. However, limited research has been performed on a unified opinion or a new superior scoring system. Recently, based on an international multicenter study, a newly developed international bleeding score (INBS) was used to predict the 30-day hospital mortality in patients with AUGIB. In the previous study, INBS well predicted 30-day mortality in UGIB patients compared to the other scoring systems.¹³In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether INBS is effective in predicting 30-day mortality in NVUGIB patients and to determine whether re-bleeding and endoscopic treatment failure was high in the patients with a relatively high INBS score.

Patients and data collection

We retrospectively included patients who visited the emergency room (ER) for AUGIB at the Chungnam National University Hospital in Daejeon, Korea from January 2013 to December 2017. Patients older than 18 years old who presented with NVUGIB symptoms (melena, hematemesis, coffee-ground vomiting, and/or hematochezia) were included in the study. Exclusion criteria for this study were as follows: patients with lower GI, obscure GI, and variceal bleeding; those with post procedural complications; and those who were lost to follow up after 30 days from visiting the ER.

Data were collected for each patient by reviewing their medical chart. The data included demographic data, comorbidities, chief complaints at first visit, diagnosis including cause of bleeding, presence of endoscopic treatment, outcomes of endoscopic treatment, 30-day in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, hemodynamics, and laboratory result. On the basis of these data, the pre-endoscopic Rockall, Glasgow Blatchford, AIMS65, and INBS were calculated. The INBS is measured based on age, comorbidity, and blood test and is weighted according to severity of each category (Table 1). Three endoscopists (HY Jeong, JK Sung, and HS Moon) with more than 15 years of experience reviewing endoscopic findings using the picture archiving communication system (PACS), classified the findings as gastric ulcers (GUs), duodenal ulcers (DUs), Dieulafoy’s lesions, Mallory-Weiss syndrome, esophageal ulcers, angio-dysplasia, hemorrhagic gastritis, acute gastric mucosal lesion, and cancer-related bleeding. The data for each scoring system were entered by one researcher (MS Kim). The INBS and other scoring systems were scored by one gastroenterologist (HS Moon) according to the scoring system reported in the previously published articles.

Definitions

The grading of overall health comorbidity was performed according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification.¹⁴ As in previous studies,¹³ we categorized the patients into the high-risk group or the low-to-moderate-risk group using a cut-off INBS score; the high-risk group included patients with an INBS score >7, whereas the low-to-moderate-risk group included patients with an INBS score ≤7.

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality at 30 days, defined as any death occurring during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were assessed for recurrence of bleeding (re-bleeding), duration of hospital stay and endoscopic hemostasis failure at the first visit in the high-risk group.

Re-bleeding was characterized as fresh hematemesis and/or melena associated with the development of shock (pulse >100 beats/min, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg), or a reduction in the hemoglobin concentration >2 g/dL for >24 h. This also included cases of re-bleeding upon repeat endoscopy.¹⁵

The hospitalization period was defined as the date from visiting the ER to the date of discharge.

Endoscopic hemostasis failure at first visit was defined as instability at the time of first visit and inability to perform endoscopic hemostasis or vascular embolization after angiography or surgery due to endoscopic hemostasis failure.

Statistical analyses

We compared each scores’ discriminative ability to predict 30-day mortality by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The optimal cut-off score for predicting very high-risk patients in each scoring system was determined by the maximum Youden index, with a sensitivity and specificity of 95%. In addition, the performance of the scoring systems was assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, percentage of patients classified as high risk, and the mortality rate among them.

Based on the risk factors previously mentioned in the scoring systems, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for predicting the 30-day mortality of NVUGIB patients visiting our hospital. A P<0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. This was to ensure that the risk factors mentioned in the other scoring systems were actually a significant risk factor in our database. All statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS (version 21.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and MedCalc (version 18.11, MedCalc®, MedCalc Software, Belgium).

Data of 1118 patients aged ≥18 years who visited the ER owing to UGIB for >5 years were reviewed. We excluded 213 patients from the study for the following reasons: 23 patients had non-UGIB, 155 had variceal bleeding, 15 had post procedure-associated bleeding, and 20 had obscure GI bleeding. In total, 905 patients were selected for evaluation. Of these, 131 and 774 patients were included in the high- and low-to-moderate-risk groups, respectively (Fig 1).

Patient characteristics

Of the 905 included patients, 674 (74.5%) were men and 231 (25.5%) were women, with a mean age of 65.4±14.7 years. Upper GIT endoscopy was performed in all included patients. Calculation of pre-RS, GBS, AIMS65, PNED, and INBS was possible in all cases. Table 2 shows the patients’ characteristics, chief complaint at first visit, treatment, and outcomes. The comorbidity scores were classified as ASA scores. The commonest endoscopic diagnosis was GU (67.8%), and the second commonest was DU (19.3%). There were 467 (51.6%) patients admitted to the hospital within 8 hours, and the average duration of hospitalization was 8.7 days. There were 35 patients who did not undergo endoscopy within 48 h of the first visit; most endoscopy was performed after intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization due to unstable vital signs. Among the total patients who underwent endoscopy, 735 received endoscopic hemostasis therapy; of these, patients underwent surgery (n = 11), trans-arterial embolization due to failure of the endoscopic treatment (n = 32), or both of them (n = 2). Among the patients who received endoscopic hemostasis, 128 had re-bleeding during the second endoscopy. A total of 44 patients (4.9%) died within 30 days.

Comparison of bleeding scores’ discriminative ability to predict the 30-day mortality

In this study, INBS had the highest discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve 0.958 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.943–0.970]) in predicting mortality within 30 days compared with the AIMS65 (0.832; P <0.001), PNED score (0.865; P <0.001), Pre-RS (0.802; P<0.001), and GBS (0.765; P <0.001). The cut-off score was >7 with a sensitivity of 97.73% and a specificity of 89.79% (Table 3 and Fig 2). The cut-off value was used to divide the patients into the high- and low-to-moderate-risk groups. A total of 131 patients (14.5%) were in the high-risk group; of these, 43 (32%) died within 3 months. The low-to-moderate-risk group comprised 774 patients (85.5%).

Multivariate analysis for 30-day mortality

On the basis of the risk factors mentioned in the scoring system for UGIB patients, we performed logistic regression to identify predictors associated with mortality in patients who visited our hospital. In the univariate regression analysis, the variables that were meaningful were male sex, old age, smoking, ASA score of 4, hypertension, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), disseminated malignancy, liver cirrhosis, sepsis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, hemoglobin, platelet count, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, international normalized ratio, syncope at first visit, endoscopic failure at first admission in 48 hours, endoscopic hemostasis failure, and re-bleeding at the second endoscopy. Multivariate regression analysis was performed with the abovementioned variables that were significant in the univariate regression analysis (Table 4). Hypertension and systolic blood pressure could be duplicated, and only one was added. The multivariate analysis revealed that an ASA score of 4, ARDS, disseminated malignancy, creatinine, albumin, syncope at first visit, and endoscopic failure at first admission within 24 hours were associated with 30-day mortality.

Re-bleeding and length of stay in the high-risk group

An INBS cut-off value >7 was used to categorize patients into the high-score group (131 patients, 14.4%) and low score group (774 patients, 85.5%). The high-score group had a relatively long length of stay, high re-bleeding rate, and endoscopic hemostasis failure.

In the present study, we evaluated whether INBS is effective in predicting 30-day mortality in NVUGIB patients and determined whether it can be helpful in predicting re-bleeding or admission duration. INBS was superior to other pre-endoscopy risk scoring systems in predicting 30-day mortality.

AUGIB is a common medical emergency associated with high morbidity and 30-day mortality rates.^1,16 More than 70% of AUGIB cases are NVUGIB, with GUs or DUs being the commonest. Mallory-Weiss syndrome, Dieulafoy’s ulcer, angiodysplasia, and cancer-related bleeding are also causes of NVUGIB.¹⁷The use of anti-ulcer drugs, such as Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy and proton-pump inhibitors, was expected to reduce peptic ulcers and decrease the mortality rate of NVUGIB patients, but the mortality rate was still as high as 6%–14% owing to population aging and use of antiplatelet drugs, anticoagulants, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.^18–21In these NVUGIB patients, timely hemostatic endoscopic procedures are important for survival improvement. For a successful treatment, assessing the hemodynamic status and appropriate risk measurement are necessary. Thus, classifying high-risk NVUGIB patients who have arrived at the ER using a highly efficient scoring system is important to help predict prognosis.²²

A variety of indicators (AIMS65,^10,11 GBS,⁹ Pre-RS,⁸ PNED¹²) have been developed and evaluated to assess the risk of NVUGIB. Hyett et al. found that the AIMS65 score was superior to GBS in predicting death, but the GBS was better in predicting the need and the number of packed red blood cell transfusions.²³In a cohort study of 424 participants, AIMS65 was also superior to GBS and Pre-RS in predicting hospital mortality, ICU admission, and loss of conscious.²⁴In a European study, the usefulness of GBS, Pre-RS, and AIMS65 in patients with UGIB was assessed; however, there was no difference in mortality or re-bleeding frequency among the three scoring systems, and GBS was the best predictor of transfusion.²⁵ In another European study of 309 patients with UGIB, AIMS65, GBS, and Pre-RS were reported to be similar when predicting patient mortality; however, the need for endoscopic intervention was better predicted by AIMS65 and GBS.²⁶In a study on the utility of GBS and AIMS65 conducted in the United States and involving 165 patients with NVUGIB aged ≥65 years, GBS was superior to AIMS65 in predicting mortality.¹⁵Evaluation of the usefulness and predictability of the scoring system for assessing the prognosis of NVUGIB varies according to each study. The recent INBS¹³was developed to predict the 30-day mortality risk of patients with NVUGIB and has been shown to predict mortality better than the previous scoring systems. It is a predictive scoring system similar to the Pre-RS and PNED scores. However, INBS provides clear criteria for cirrhosis, differentiation of ASA scores according to hemodialysis, and blood tests to assess liver and renal functions. Unlike previous scoring systems, this included subjective factors of medical staff to score liver, renal, and heart failures. It is simple and easy to apply as it classifies and score items through objective indicators.

Our research suggests several strengths based on this new scoring system. First, this study validated INBS against the Pre-RS, GBS, AIMS65, and PNED risk stratification scores for predicting 30-day mortality. INBS was superior to other pre-endoscopy risk scores in predicting 30-day mortality. AIMS65, PNED, and Pre-RS showed higher mortality predictions with an AUROC >0.8, but it had lower values compared to INBS. Secondly, variables considered as risk factors in each scoring system were confirmed in this study. In the multivariate analysis, an ASA score of 4, ARDS, disseminated malignancy, creatinine, albumin, syncope at first visit, and failure of endoscopic treatment within 24 hours of the first visit were identified as risk factors for death in NVUGIB patients. The risk of death due to underlying disease factors, aggravation of liver and kidney diseases, and failure of endoscopic treatment at the first visit were confirmed. The significant death risk factors in this study were similar to the death risk factors already reflected in INBS. INBS has proposed criteria to identify liver and renal failures through liver cirrhosis, decreased albumin levels, and increased BUN and creatinine levels. The severity of the underlying disease was scored using the ASA classification. Thirdly, we classified the patients into the high- and low-to-moderate-risk groups based on the INBS cutoff value of >7. The cut-off value was the same to that published in a previous study of ≥8 for the high-risk group.¹⁶In our study, we showed that the high INBS group had a relatively long hospital stay and high re-bleeding and endoscopic hemostasis failure rates. The cause of death from bleeding was one of the predictable outcomes if the patient was unable to tolerate hemostatic treatment due to poor general condition or bleeding from cancer and massive bleeding from the large vessels. Therefore, classification of patients using INBS is relatively expected to be used as a tool to increase the probability of successful hemostasis and to shorten the hospitalization period through rapid endoscopic treatment and intensive monitoring.

Korea’s tertiary medical care institutions have a tendency to promptly and actively perform endoscopy in patients. Therefore, it is necessary for the doctors who performed endoscopy to have a classification standard or score to help determine the appropriate time of endoscopy and to predict the prognosis of NVUGIB patients. Using INBS, identification of patients with a high risk of death is possible, allowing targeted management and interventions that may improve outcome.

This study has some limitations. First, the present investigation was a retrospective, single-center study, which can be a confounding factor. Therefore, a larger sample size and a prospectively designed study are needed to confirm the effectiveness of INBS. Second, this is an observational study, which focused on a high-risk mortality factor and classified high-risk patients. However, the criteria for low-risk patients with low scores were not established, and neither the criteria for the need for endoscopic treatment nor those for outpatient follow-up were presented. Given the nature of the tertiary medical institutions, most patients visiting the ER with AUGIB are often referred from other medical institutions because of the severity of the disease. Thus, doctors often think that endoscopy should be performed or patients want to undergo endoscopy. Therefore, examining our study subjects is important to confirm the suitability of the score in selecting low-risk patients to receive outpatient treatment without endoscopy. In addition, the INBS scoring system is limited in its use as a criterion for selecting low-risk groups, because it weighs in identifying patients who are at risk of sudden aggravation or death from liver or kidney disease. However, further studies on the usefulness of early endoscopy and the feasibility of applying a second-look endoscopy according to the risk of this new scoring system may be needed.

In conclusion, INBS is useful for predicting 30-day mortality in patients with NVUGIB. Screening for high-risk groups using this new scoring system can also predict mortality, longer hospital admission, re-bleeding, and endoscopic hemostasis failure. The new scoring system enables a timely endoscopic approach and appropriate management, which can improve the prognosis of patients with NVUGIB. However, further prospective studies are necessary to validate the new scoring system in non-variceal bleeding.

Abbreviations

AUGIB: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

NVUGIB: Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INBS: International new bleeding score

RS: the Rockall score

Pre-RS: pre-endoscopic Rockall score

GBS: Glasgow-Blatchford score

PNED: Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva

ER: emergency room

ASA: the American Society of Anesthesiologists

AUROC: the area under the receiver operating characteristic

CI: confidence interval

GU: Gastric ulcer

DU: Duodenal ulcer

ARDS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome

BUN: blood urea nitrogen

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chungnam National University Hospital (IRB number; CNUH 2019–02–024), and the requirement for obtaining written consent was waived because of the retrospective design of the study. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

This study received no financial support

Authors’ contributions

HSM supervised the entire study and participated in the study design. MSK, JHP, JSK, SHK, JKS, ESL, SHK, BSL, and HYJ analyzed and interpreted the data. MSK and ISK performed statistical analyses. MSK and HSM wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Author information

¹University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, 34952,Korea

²Clinical Trials Center, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, 34952, Korea

Kurien M, Lobo AJ. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Med (Lond). 2015;15:481–5.
Hearnshaw SA, Logan RF, Lowe D, Travis SP, Murphy MF, Palmer KR. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut. 2011;60:1327–35.
Leontiadis GI, Molloy-Bland M, Moayyedi P, Howden CW. Effect of comorbidity on mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:331–45.
Ahsberg K, Höglund P, Staël von Holstein C. Mortality from peptic ulcer bleeding: the impact of comorbidity and the use of drugs that promote bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32:801–10.
Targownik LE, Nabalamba A. Trends in management and outcomes of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: 1993–2003. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1459–66.
Barkun AN, Bardou M, Kuipers EJ, Sung J, Hunt RH, Martel M, et al. International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:101–13.
Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC. Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut. 1996;38:316–21.
Tham TC, James C, Kelly M. Predicting outcome of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage without endoscopy using the clinical Rockall score. Postgrad Med J. 2006;82:757–9.
Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 2000;356:1318–21.
Saltzman JR, Tabak YP, Hyett BH, Sun X, Travis AC, Johannes RS. A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:1215–24.
Nakamura S, Matsumoto T, Sugimori H, Esaki M, Kitazono T, Hashizume M. Emergency endoscopy for acute gastrointestinal bleeding: prognostic value of endoscopic hemostasis and the AIMS65 score in Japanese patients. Dig Endosc. 2014;26:369–76.
Marmo R, Koch M, Cipolletta L, Grossi E, Cestari R, Bianco MA, et al. Predicting mortality in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeders: validation of the Italian PNED score and prospective comparison with the Rockall score. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1284–91.
Laursen SB, Laine L, Dalton H, Murray IA, Schultz M, Ngu JH, et al. The International Bleeding Risk Score: a new risk score that can accurately predict mortality in patients with upper GI-bleeding. Gastroenterol J. 2017;152:S149–50.
Dobson G, Chong M, Chow L, Flexman A, Kurrek M, Laflamme C, et al. Guidelines to the practice of anesthesia - revised edition 2017. Can J Anaesth. 2017;64:65–91.
Jung SH, Oh JH, Lee HY, Jeong JW, Go SE, You CR, et al. Is the AIMS65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding? World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:1846–51.
Marx J, Walls R, Hockberger R. Rosen’s Emergency Medicine-Concepts and Clinical Practice E-Book: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
Holster IL, Kuipers EJ. Management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: current policies and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:1202–7.
Kwon JH, Choi MG, Lee SW, Shu XX, Choi JY, Yoon SK, et al. Trends of gastrointestinal diseases at a single institution in Korea over the past two decades. Gut Liver. 2009;3:252–8.
Nagasue T, Nakamura S, Kochi S, Kurahara K, Yaita H, Kawasaki K, et al. Time trends of the impact of Helicobacter pylori infection and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on peptic ulcer bleeding in Japanese patients. Digestion. 2015;91:37–41.
Theocharis GJ, Thomopoulos KC, Sakellaropoulos G, Katsakoulis E, Nikolopoulou V. Changing trends in the epidemiology and clinical outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a defined geographical area in Greece. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:128–33.
Ahsberg K, Höglund P, Staël von Holstein C. Mortality from peptic ulcer bleeding: the impact of comorbidity and the use of drugs that promote bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32:801–10.
Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC. Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut. 1996;38:316–21.
Hyett BH, Abougergi MS, Charpentier JP, Kumar NL, Brozovic S, Claggett BL, et al. The AMIS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:551–7.
Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, Chung W, Worland T, Terban R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rock-all scoring systems. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:1151–60.
Budimir I, Gradiser M, Nikolic M, Barsic N, Ljubicic N, Kralj D, et al. Glasgow Blatchford, pre-endoscopic Rockall and AIMS65 scores show no difference in predicting rebleeding rate and mortality in variceal bleeding. Scand J Gastroentrerol. 2016;51:1375–9.
Martinez-Cara JG, Jimenez-Rosaltes R, Ubeda-Munoz M, de Hierro M, de Teresa J, Redondo-Cerezo E. Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and Rockall score in a European series of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: performance when predicting in-hospital and delayed mortality. United European Gastroenterol J. 2016;4:371–9.

Table 1. International bleeding risk score for predicting 30-day mortality

Variable

Assigned score

Age

60-74 years

≥75 years

Comorbidity

Altered mental status

Liver cirrhosis

Disseminated malignancy

ASA score

≥4

Blood tests

Urea > 10 mmol/L

Albumin < 30 g/L

Creatinine

100-150 µmol/L

> 150 µmol/L

Table 2. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes of the study population

Patient related factor All patients (n=905)
*Characteristics*
Sex
Male	674 (74.5%)
Female	231(25.5%)
Age, years	65.4 14.7
<65	397(43.9%)
≥65	508 (56.1%)
Alcohol
Never	505 (55.8%)
Past	29 (3.1%)
Present	371 (41.0%)
Smoking
Never	473 (52.3%)
Past	219 (24.2%)
Present	213 (23.5%)
ASA score 3	488 (53.9%)
ASA score 4	96 (10.6%)
Comorbidity
Diabetes mellitus	251 (27.7%)
Hypertension	453 (50.1%)
Angina	81 (9.0%)
Cerebral infarction	156 (17.2%)
ARDS	28 (3.1%)
Disseminated malignancy	87 (9.6%)
Liver cirrhosis	67 (7.4%)
Sepsis	29 (3.2%)
DIC	26 (2.9%)
*Chief complaint at first visit*
Melena	453 (50.1%)
Hematemesis	282 (31.2%)
Syncope	43 (4.8%)
Hematochezia	66 (7.3%)
Anemia	20 (2.2%)
Dizziness	28 (3.1%)
Others	13 (1.4%)
*Endoscopic findings* *of acute NVUGIB*
Gastric ulcer	614 (67.8%)
Duodenal ulcer	175 (19.3%)
Gastroduodenal ulcer	11 (1.21%)
Esophageal ulcer	7 (0.77%)
Mallory-Weiss syndrome	47 (5.19%)
AGML	4 (0.44%)
Angiodysplasia	22 (2.43%)
Hemorrhagic gastritis	12 (1.32%)
Cancer-related bleeding	13 (1.76%)
Forrest classification (IA, IB, ⅡA)	607 (67.0%)
Forrest classification(ⅡB, ⅡC, Ⅲ)	298 (32.9%)
*Outcomes*
Admission before 8 h	467 (51.6%)
Admission day (mean)	8.779 day
Endoscopy failure at first admission	35 (3.9%)
Endoscopic hemostasis therapy	735 (81.2%)
Endoscopic hemostasis failure	52 (7.0%)
Re-bleeding at 2nd endoscopy	128 (14.1%)
All-cause mortality in hospital in 30 days	44 (4.9%)

Data are presented as mean±SD, number (%), or mean (range)

NVUGIB, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; ASA, the American Society of Anesthesiology classification;

ARDS, Acute respiratory distress syndrome; DIC, Disseminated intravascular coagulation; AGML, acute gastric mucosal

lesion

Table 3. Predictive and discriminative abilities for identification of patients at high-risk of mortality in 30 days

System	Cut-off	High-risk n(%)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	AUROC (95% CI)	Mortality n(%)
AIMS65	>1	304(33.6)	81.82	68.87	0.832 (0.806 to 0.856)	36(11)
PNED	>4	208(23)	84.09	80.14	0.865 (0.841 to 0.886)	37(17)
Pre-RS	>4	165(18.2)	59.09	83.86	0.802 (0.774 to 0.827)	26(15)
GBS	>12	219(24)	63.64	77.82	0.765 (0.736 to 0.793)	28(12)
INBS	>7	131(14.5)	97.73	89.79	0.958 (0.943 to 0.970)	43(32)

INBS, International bleeding risk score; Pre-RS, Pre-endoscopic Rockall Score; GBS, Glasgow Blatchford score; PNED, Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva; AUROC, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve; CI, confidence interval

Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analyses for 30-day mortality (n=905)

Risk factor	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Risk factor	OR	95% CI	P value	OR	95% CI	P value
*Patient related factor*
Sex (Male)	2.106	1.132-3.918	0.019	1.449	0.346-6.060	0.611
Age	1.031	1.007-1.056	0.012	1.017	0.967-1.069	0.507
Alcohol
Never	1.000
Present	1.548	0.842-2.844	0.159
Smoking
Never	1.000
Present	0.442	0.228-0.857	0.016	0.383	0.106-1.385	0.143
ASA score 3	1.383	0.742-2.579	0.307
ASA score 4	200.279	60.103-667.385	0.000	111.642	16.31-764.083	0.000
*Comorbidity*
Diabetes mellitus	1.318	0.693-2.508	0.4
Hypertension	2.481	1.281-4.806	0.007
Angina	0.735	0.222-2.427	0.613
Cerebral infarction	1.440	0.696-2.981	0.325
ARDS	68.151	27.674-167.829	0.000	19.530	2.795-136.471	0.003
Disseminated malignancy	3.930	1.943-7.949	0.000	9.020	1.741-46.716	0.009
Liver cirrhosis	3.021	1.343-6.793	0.008	1.050	0.171-6.51	0.958
Sepsis	22.147	9.804-50.029	0.000	0.695	0.124-3.894	0.679
DIC	156.313	54.178-450.991	0.000	3.430	0.583-20.158	0.173
*Vital sign*
SBP	0.968	0.954-0.982	0.000	1.026	1.000-1.052	0.052
HR	1.016	1.002-1.030	0.029	1.020	0.991-1.050	0.178
*Lab*
Hb	0.803	0.706-0.914	0.001	0.901	0.679-1.194	0.468
PLT	0.993	0.989-0.998	0.002	0.999	0.993-1.005	0.707
BUN	2.356	1.277-4.346	0.006	0.334	0.083-1.349	0.124
Cr	1.012	1.003-1.020	0.006	1.434	1.031-1.996	0.032
Alb	0.099	0.053-0.186	0.000	0.182	0.045-0.726	0.016
INR	1.539	1.230-1.927	0.000	1.596	0.857-2.972	0.141
*Chief complaint at first visit*
Syncope	19.449	9.488-39.865	0.000	5.985	1.294-27.687	0.022
*Admission and Endoscopy*
Admission before 8 h	0.794	0.432-1.462	0.459
Admission day(≥ 8 days)	6.503	3.345-12.645	0.000	1.145	0.268-4.890	0.855
*Outcomes*
Endoscopy failure at first admission	27.903	13.072-59.561	0.000	8.272	1.558-43.104	0.012
Endoscopy hemostasis failure	6.667	3.146-14.128	0.000	1.109	0.235-5.226	0.896
Re-bleeding at 2nd endoscopy	2.720	1.383-5.352	0.004	0.586	0.127-2.702	0.493

ASA, the American Society of Anesthesiology classification; ARDS, Acute respiratory distress syndrome; DIC, Disseminated intravascular coagulation; SBP, Systolic blood pressure; HR, Heart rate; Hb, Hemoglobin; PLT, Platelet; BUN, Blood urea nitrogen; Cr, Creatinine; Alb, Albumin; INR, international normalized ration; CI, confidence interval

Table 5. Long-term hospital stay and occurrence of re-bleeding between high-risk group and low-to-moderate risk group

	High-risk group (n=131)	Low-to-moderate risk group (n=774)
Admission day(≥ 8 days)	86 (65%)	45 (5%)
Re-bleeding	36 (27%)	92 (11%)
Endoscopic hemostasis failure	23 (17%)	29 (3.7%)

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 17 Jun, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Gastroenterology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
25 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received at journal
21 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
17 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
21 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
13 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited by journal
08 Oct, 2019
Submission checks completed at journal
10 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned by journal
02 Sep, 2019
Editor invited by journal
01 Sep, 2019
First submitted to journal
31 Aug, 2019

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Validation of a New Risk Score System for Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1