Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gonçalves,Tiago Cúrdia
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Barbosa,Mara, Xavier,Sofia, Carvalho,Pedro Boal, Machado,João Firmino, Magalhães,Joana, Marinho,Carla, Cotter,José
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000600005
Resumo: Introduction: Although different scores have been suggested to predict outcomes in the setting of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), few comparative studies between simplified versions of older scores and recent scores have been published. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of pre- (PreRS) and postendoscopic Rockall scores (PostRS), the GlasgowBlatchford score (GBS) and its simplified version (sGBS), as well as the AIMS65 score in predicting different clinical outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective study, PreRS, PostRS, GBS, sGBS, and AIMS65 score were calculated, and then, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to evaluate the performance of each score to predict blood transfusion, endoscopic therapy, surgery, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, as well as 30-day rebleeding or mortality. Results: PreRS, PostRS, GBS, and sGBS were calculated for all the 433 included patients, but AIMS65 calculation was only possible for 315 patients. Only the PreRS and PostRS were able to fairly predict 30-day mortality. The GBS and sGBS were good in predicting blood transfusion and reasonable in predicting surgery. None of the studied scores were good in predicting the need for endoscopic therapy, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, and 30-day rebleeding. Conclusions: Owing to the identified limitations, none of the 5 studied scores could be singly used to predict all the clinically relevant outcomes in the setting of UGIB. The sGBS was as precise as the GBS in predicting blood transfusion and surgery. The PreRS and PostRS were the only scores that could predict 30-day mortality. An algorithm using the PreRS and the sGBS as an initial approach to patients with UGIB is presented and suggested.
id RCAP_e123ff009e9344635826d1fb62e9d22f
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2341-45452018000600005
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 OutcomesUpper gastrointestinal bleedingRisk assessmentScoresOutcomesIntroduction: Although different scores have been suggested to predict outcomes in the setting of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), few comparative studies between simplified versions of older scores and recent scores have been published. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of pre- (PreRS) and postendoscopic Rockall scores (PostRS), the GlasgowBlatchford score (GBS) and its simplified version (sGBS), as well as the AIMS65 score in predicting different clinical outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective study, PreRS, PostRS, GBS, sGBS, and AIMS65 score were calculated, and then, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to evaluate the performance of each score to predict blood transfusion, endoscopic therapy, surgery, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, as well as 30-day rebleeding or mortality. Results: PreRS, PostRS, GBS, and sGBS were calculated for all the 433 included patients, but AIMS65 calculation was only possible for 315 patients. Only the PreRS and PostRS were able to fairly predict 30-day mortality. The GBS and sGBS were good in predicting blood transfusion and reasonable in predicting surgery. None of the studied scores were good in predicting the need for endoscopic therapy, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, and 30-day rebleeding. Conclusions: Owing to the identified limitations, none of the 5 studied scores could be singly used to predict all the clinically relevant outcomes in the setting of UGIB. The sGBS was as precise as the GBS in predicting blood transfusion and surgery. The PreRS and PostRS were the only scores that could predict 30-day mortality. An algorithm using the PreRS and the sGBS as an initial approach to patients with UGIB is presented and suggested.Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia2018-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000600005GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.25 n.6 2018reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000600005Gonçalves,Tiago CúrdiaBarbosa,MaraXavier,SofiaCarvalho,Pedro BoalMachado,João FirminoMagalhães,JoanaMarinho,CarlaCotter,Joséinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:33:53Zoai:scielo:S2341-45452018000600005Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:36:05.368139Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
title Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
spellingShingle Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
Gonçalves,Tiago Cúrdia
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Risk assessment
Scores
Outcomes
title_short Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
title_full Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
title_fullStr Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
title_sort Optimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes
author Gonçalves,Tiago Cúrdia
author_facet Gonçalves,Tiago Cúrdia
Barbosa,Mara
Xavier,Sofia
Carvalho,Pedro Boal
Machado,João Firmino
Magalhães,Joana
Marinho,Carla
Cotter,José
author_role author
author2 Barbosa,Mara
Xavier,Sofia
Carvalho,Pedro Boal
Machado,João Firmino
Magalhães,Joana
Marinho,Carla
Cotter,José
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gonçalves,Tiago Cúrdia
Barbosa,Mara
Xavier,Sofia
Carvalho,Pedro Boal
Machado,João Firmino
Magalhães,Joana
Marinho,Carla
Cotter,José
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Risk assessment
Scores
Outcomes
topic Upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Risk assessment
Scores
Outcomes
description Introduction: Although different scores have been suggested to predict outcomes in the setting of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), few comparative studies between simplified versions of older scores and recent scores have been published. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of pre- (PreRS) and postendoscopic Rockall scores (PostRS), the GlasgowBlatchford score (GBS) and its simplified version (sGBS), as well as the AIMS65 score in predicting different clinical outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective study, PreRS, PostRS, GBS, sGBS, and AIMS65 score were calculated, and then, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to evaluate the performance of each score to predict blood transfusion, endoscopic therapy, surgery, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, as well as 30-day rebleeding or mortality. Results: PreRS, PostRS, GBS, and sGBS were calculated for all the 433 included patients, but AIMS65 calculation was only possible for 315 patients. Only the PreRS and PostRS were able to fairly predict 30-day mortality. The GBS and sGBS were good in predicting blood transfusion and reasonable in predicting surgery. None of the studied scores were good in predicting the need for endoscopic therapy, admission to intensive/intermediate care unit, length of hospital stay, and 30-day rebleeding. Conclusions: Owing to the identified limitations, none of the 5 studied scores could be singly used to predict all the clinically relevant outcomes in the setting of UGIB. The sGBS was as precise as the GBS in predicting blood transfusion and surgery. The PreRS and PostRS were the only scores that could predict 30-day mortality. An algorithm using the PreRS and the sGBS as an initial approach to patients with UGIB is presented and suggested.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-12-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000600005
url http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000600005
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000600005
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.25 n.6 2018
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799137413045420032