Title of article :
Comparative analysis of four upper gastrointestinal bleeding scoring systems for predicting multiple outcomes: an observational study in the emergency department
Author/Authors :
Tohidi ، Najmeh Department of Emergency Medicine - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Movahedi ، Mitra Department of Emergency Medicine - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Rezaei Zadeh Rukerd ، Mohammad Gastroenterology and Hepatology Research Center, Institute of Basic and Clinical Physiology Sciences - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Mirkamali ، Hanieh Student Research Committee, School of Medicine - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Alizadeh ، Danial Faculty of Medicine - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Najafzadeh ، Mohammad Javad Department of Orthopedic Surgery - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Honarmand ، Amin Department of Emergency Medicine - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Ilaghi ، Mehran Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center - Kerman University of Medical Sciences , Pourzand ، Pouria Department of Emergency Medicine - School of Medicine - University of Minnesota , Mirafzal ، Amirhossein Department of Emergency Medicine - Kerman University of Medical Sciences
From page :
e24
To page :
e24
Abstract :
Objective: Numerous scoring systems have been developed to assess the risk associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and several studies have investigated their comparative accuracy in predicting patient outcomes. This study was undertaken to compare four well-known scoring systems, namely the pre-endoscopy Rockall score, full Rockall score, Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding score (GBS), and AIMS65, with the aim of predicting five distinct outcomes in cases of non-variceal UGIB. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted focusing on adult patients with UGIB presenting to the emergency department (ED). The primary endpoints of this study included in-hospital mortality, the need for re-endoscopy, the requirements for packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion, massive transfusion, and one-month rebleeding. Results: A total number of 320 patients were enrolled, with 44 (13·75%) in-hospital deaths. Based on the area under the curves (AUC), while certain scores outperformed others in specific outcome prediction, the AIMS65 scoring system demonstrated superior predictive capability for both in-hospital mortality (0.91) and massive transfusion (0.71). Regarding PRBC transfusion requirements, both AIMS65 and GBS exhibited similar predictive capacities (AUC=0.67 and 0.68, respectively). In terms of re-endoscopy and one-month rebleeding, the GBS scoring system displayed slightly better performance compared to the other systems (AUC=0.61 and 0.63, respectively). In the composite outcome, all scores had significant associations, and among them, the AIMS-65 score had the highest AUC (0.76). Conclusion: The AIMS65 scoring system was the most reliable tool for predicting in-hospital mortality and, to a lesser extent, massive transfusion requirements, while GBS and AIMS65 could be moderately and cautiously relied on for preparations regarding the need for PRBC transfusion.
Keywords :
Outcomes , Prediction , Scoring Systems , Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Journal title :
Frontiers in Emergency Medicine
Journal title :
Frontiers in Emergency Medicine
Record number :
2777830
Link To Document :
بازگشت