The efficacy and comparison of upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scoring systems on predicting clinical outcomes among emergency unit patients.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY BMC Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-02-19 DOI:10.1186/s12876-025-03684-7
Sezer Arıkoğlu, Onur Tezel, Galip Büyükturan, Bilgin Bahadır Başgöz
{"title":"The efficacy and comparison of upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scoring systems on predicting clinical outcomes among emergency unit patients.","authors":"Sezer Arıkoğlu, Onur Tezel, Galip Büyükturan, Bilgin Bahadır Başgöz","doi":"10.1186/s12876-025-03684-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gastrointestinal bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among emergency unit patients. Several scoring systems are verified for predicting hospitalization and mortality such as Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), AIMS65 score, Rockall score (RS), and International Bleeding Risk Score (INBS; ABC score). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and predictive value of these scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled. The age, gender, complaints at admission, vitals and examination results, laboratory findings, outcomes, blood transfusion status, and endoscopic interventions were all reported, and GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores were calculated individually for all enrollies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 311 patients were included. The median age of participants was 70 years (IQR (25-75%): 59-81), and 202 (65%) of them were male. The efficacy of all four scoring systems (GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC)) in predicting hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05 for all). ROC-AUC analysis was revealed that while GBS is the most beneficial in predicting hospitalization, INBS (ABC) has the best predictive value on mortality. Besides, the only scoring model with predictive value in determining the need for endoscopic intervention was RS (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study showed that, among adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores could successfully predict hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality. However, the only scoring system that could be used to determine the need of endoscopic intervention is RS. Finally, we believe further studies with prospective enrollment would be beneficial for more accurate conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9129,"journal":{"name":"BMC Gastroenterology","volume":"25 1","pages":"93"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840997/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-03684-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among emergency unit patients. Several scoring systems are verified for predicting hospitalization and mortality such as Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), AIMS65 score, Rockall score (RS), and International Bleeding Risk Score (INBS; ABC score). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and predictive value of these scoring systems.

Methods: Adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled. The age, gender, complaints at admission, vitals and examination results, laboratory findings, outcomes, blood transfusion status, and endoscopic interventions were all reported, and GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores were calculated individually for all enrollies.

Results: A total of 311 patients were included. The median age of participants was 70 years (IQR (25-75%): 59-81), and 202 (65%) of them were male. The efficacy of all four scoring systems (GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC)) in predicting hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05 for all). ROC-AUC analysis was revealed that while GBS is the most beneficial in predicting hospitalization, INBS (ABC) has the best predictive value on mortality. Besides, the only scoring model with predictive value in determining the need for endoscopic intervention was RS (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The present study showed that, among adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores could successfully predict hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality. However, the only scoring system that could be used to determine the need of endoscopic intervention is RS. Finally, we believe further studies with prospective enrollment would be beneficial for more accurate conclusions.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
上消化道出血风险评分系统预测急诊科患者临床结局的疗效及比较。
背景:胃肠道出血是急诊科患者发病和死亡的重要原因。几种评分系统被验证用于预测住院和死亡率,如格拉斯哥布拉奇福德出血评分(GBS)、AIMS65评分、罗克尔评分(RS)和国际出血风险评分(INBS;ABC得分)。本研究的目的是评估这些评分系统的有效性和预测价值。方法:回顾性分析急诊成人消化道出血患者。报告了所有入组者的年龄、性别、入院时的主诉、生命体征和检查结果、实验室检查结果、结局、输血状况和内镜干预,并分别计算了所有入组者的GBS、AIMS65、RS和INBS (ABC)评分。结果:共纳入311例患者。参与者的中位年龄为70岁(IQR(25-75%): 59-81岁),其中202名(65%)为男性。四种评分系统(GBS、AIMS65、RS和INBS (ABC))在预测住院、输血需求、确定高危和低危患者以及死亡率方面的有效性均具有统计学意义(p)。本研究表明,在成人急诊科消化道出血患者中,GBS、AIMS65、RS和INBS (ABC)评分可以成功预测住院、输血需求、高危和低危患者的确定以及死亡率。然而,唯一可以用来确定是否需要内镜干预的评分系统是RS。最后,我们相信进一步的前瞻性研究将有助于得出更准确的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Gastroenterology
BMC Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
465
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Gastroenterology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Foreign body ingestion in adults: a retrospective cohort study of clinical characteristics and Endoscopic outcomes. Clinical and biochemical factors associated with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective case-control study. Successful Endoscopic Direct Appendicitis Therapy (EDAT) for occult appendiceal perforation with abscess: a case report. Routine magnifying endoscopy mode improved the diagnostic efficacy of opportunistic screening for early upper gastrointestinal neoplasms: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Autoantibody profiles and fibrosis indices across HBV-related disease stages: a retrospective laboratory-based study in a tertiary hospital in China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1