Full and Modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score in Predicting the Outcome of Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Ali Shahrami, Saba Ahmadi, Saeed Safari
{"title":"Full and Modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score in Predicting the Outcome of Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study","authors":"Ali Shahrami, Saba Ahmadi, Saeed Safari","doi":"10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.21449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Screening of high risk patients and accelerating their treatment measures can reduce the burden of the disease caused by acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This study aimed to compare the full and modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS and mGBS) in prediction of in-hospital outcomes of upper GI bleeding. Methods: In the present retrospective cross-sectional study, the accuracy of GBS and mGBS models were compared in predicting the outcome of patients over 18 years of age with acute upper GI bleeding confirmed via endoscopy, presenting to the emergency departments of 3 teaching hospitals during 4 years. Results: 330 cases with the mean age of 59.07 ± 19.00 years entered the study (63.60% male). Area under the curve of GBS and mGBS scoring systems were 0.691 and 0.703, respectively, in prediction of re-bleeding (p = 0.219), 0.562 and 0.563 regarding need for surgery (p = 0.978), 0.549 and 0.542 for endoscopic intervention (p = 0.505), and 0.767 and 0.770 regarding blood transfusion (p = 0.753). Area under the ROC curve of GBS scoring system regarding need for hospitalization in intensive care unit (0.589 vs. 0.563; p = 0.035) and mortality (0.597 vs. 0.564; p = 0.011) was better but the superiority was not clinically significant. Conclusion: GBS and mGBS scoring systems have similar accuracy in prediction of the probability of re-bleeding, need for blood transfusion, surgery and endoscopic intervention, hospitalization in intensive care unit, and mortality of patients with acute upper GI bleeding.","PeriodicalId":11681,"journal":{"name":"Emergency","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.21449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Introduction: Screening of high risk patients and accelerating their treatment measures can reduce the burden of the disease caused by acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This study aimed to compare the full and modified Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS and mGBS) in prediction of in-hospital outcomes of upper GI bleeding. Methods: In the present retrospective cross-sectional study, the accuracy of GBS and mGBS models were compared in predicting the outcome of patients over 18 years of age with acute upper GI bleeding confirmed via endoscopy, presenting to the emergency departments of 3 teaching hospitals during 4 years. Results: 330 cases with the mean age of 59.07 ± 19.00 years entered the study (63.60% male). Area under the curve of GBS and mGBS scoring systems were 0.691 and 0.703, respectively, in prediction of re-bleeding (p = 0.219), 0.562 and 0.563 regarding need for surgery (p = 0.978), 0.549 and 0.542 for endoscopic intervention (p = 0.505), and 0.767 and 0.770 regarding blood transfusion (p = 0.753). Area under the ROC curve of GBS scoring system regarding need for hospitalization in intensive care unit (0.589 vs. 0.563; p = 0.035) and mortality (0.597 vs. 0.564; p = 0.011) was better but the superiority was not clinically significant. Conclusion: GBS and mGBS scoring systems have similar accuracy in prediction of the probability of re-bleeding, need for blood transfusion, surgery and endoscopic intervention, hospitalization in intensive care unit, and mortality of patients with acute upper GI bleeding.
格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德出血评分与修正评分对急性上消化道出血预后的预测诊断准确性研究
引言:筛查高危患者并加快其治疗措施可以减轻急性上消化道出血引起的疾病负担。本研究旨在比较完整和改良的Glasgow Blatchford出血评分(GBS和mGBS)对上消化道出血住院结局的预测。方法:在本回顾性横断面研究中,比较GBS和mGBS模型在预测经内镜确诊的18岁以上急性上消化道出血患者的预后方面的准确性,这些患者在4年内出现在3家教学医院的急诊科。结果:330例,平均年龄59.07±19.00岁,其中男性占63.60%。GBS和mGBS评分系统的曲线下面积在预测再次出血时分别为0.691和0.703(p=0.219),在需要手术时分别为0.562和0.563(p=0.978),在内镜介入治疗中分别为0.549和0.542(p=0.505),输血方面为0.767和0.770(p=0.753)。GBS评分系统ROC曲线下关于重症监护室住院需求的面积(0.589 vs.0.563;p=0.035)和死亡率(0.597 vs.0.564;p=0.011)更好,但优势在临床上并不显著。结论:GBS和mGBS评分系统在预测急性上消化道出血患者再次出血的概率、输血的需要、手术和内镜干预、重症监护室住院以及死亡率方面具有相似的准确性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Emergency
Emergency EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: "Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine" is an international, Open Access, peer-reviewed, continuously published journal dedicated to improving the quality of care and increasing the knowledge in the field of emergency medicine by publishing high quality articles concerning emergency medicine and related disciplines. All accepted articles will be published immediately in order to increase its visibility and possibility of citation. The journal publishes articles on critical care, disaster and trauma management, environmental diseases, toxicology, pediatric emergency medicine, emergency medical services, emergency nursing, health policy and ethics, and other related topics. The journal supports the following types of articles: -Original/Research article -Systematic review/Meta-analysis -Brief report -Case-report -Letter to the editor -Photo quiz
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信