Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study

Objective To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Design International multicentre prospective study.Setting Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania.Participants 30...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	BMJ (Online) Vol. 356; p. i6432
Main Authors:	Stanley, Adrian J, Laine, Loren, Dalton, Harry R, Ngu, Jing H, Schultz, Michael, Abazi, Roseta, Zakko, Liam, Thornton, Susan, Wilkinson, Kelly, Khor, Cristopher J L, Murray, Iain A, Laursen, Stig B
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 04-01-2017 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
Subjects:	Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Area Under Curve Blood Endoscopy Female Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - etiology Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - mortality Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - therapy Hemodynamics Hospitals Humans Length of stay Male Middle Aged Mortality Patients Predictive Value of Tests Prognosis Prospective Studies Risk assessment Risk Assessment - methods Risk Assessment - statistics & numerical data ROC Curve Sensitivity and Specificity Severity of Illness Index Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Young Adult United Kingdom > UK Singapore
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Objective To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Design International multicentre prospective study.Setting Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania.Participants 3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Main outcome measures Comparison of pre-endoscopy scores (admission Rockall, AIMS65, and Glasgow Blatchford) and post-endoscopy scores (full Rockall and PNED) for their ability to predict predefined clinical endpoints: a composite endpoint (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or 30 day mortality), endoscopic treatment, 30 day mortality, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay. Optimum score thresholds to identify low risk and high risk patients were determined.Results The Glasgow Blatchford score was best (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) at predicting intervention or death compared with the full Rockall score (0.70), PNED score (0.69), admission Rockall score (0.66, and AIMS65 score (0.68) (all P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≤1 was the optimum threshold to predict survival without intervention (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 34.6%). The Glasgow Blatchford score was better at predicting endoscopic treatment (AUROC 0.75) than the AIMS65 (0.62) and admission Rockall scores (0.61) (both P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≥7 was the optimum threshold to predict endoscopic treatment (sensitivity 80%, specificity 57%). The PNED (AUROC 0.77) and AIMS65 scores (0.77) were best at predicting mortality, with both superior to admission Rockall score (0.72) and Glasgow Blatchford score (0.64; P<0.001). Score thresholds of ≥4 for PNED, ≥2 for AIMS65, ≥4 for admission Rockall, and ≥5 for full Rockall were optimal at predicting death, with sensitivities of 65.8-78.6% and specificities of 65.0-65.3%. No score was helpful at predicting rebleeding or length of stay.Conclusions The Glasgow Blatchford score has high accuracy at predicting need for hospital based intervention or death. Scores of ≤1 appear the optimum threshold for directing patients to outpatient management. AUROCs of scores for the other endpoints are less than 0.80, therefore their clinical utility for these outcomes seems to be limited.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16235737.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	1756-1833 0959-8138 1756-1833
DOI:	10.1136/bmj.i6432