Improving gastrointestinal scoring systems for predicting short-term mortality in critically ill patients.

Abstract

Shen et al's retrospective study aims to compare the utility of two separate scoring systems for predicting mortality attributable to gastrointestinal (GI) injury in critically ill patients [the GI Dysfunction Score (GIDS) and the Acute Gastrointestinal Injury (AGI) grade]. The authors note that this study is the first proposal that suggests an equivalence between the ability of both scores to predict mortality at 28 days from intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Shen et al retrospectively analysed an ICU cohort of patients utilising two physicians administering both the AGI grade and GIDS score, using electronic healthcare records and ICU flowsheets. Where these physicians disagreed about the scores, the final decision as to the scores was made by an associate chief physician, or chief physician. We note that the primary reason for the development of GIDS was to create a clear score for GI dysfunction, with minimal subjectivity or inter-operator variability. The subjectivity inherent to the older AGI grading system is what ultimately led to the development of GIDS in 2021. By ensuring consensus between physicians administering the AGI, Shen et al have controlled for one of this grading systems biggest issues. We have concerns, however, that this does not represent the real-world challenges associated with applying the AGI compared to the newer GIDS, and wonder if this arbitration process had not been instituted, would the two scoring systems remain equivalent in terms of predicted mortality?