Scholarlink

Background and Objectives <p>Risk stratification of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is crucial for streamlining healthcare in resource-limited settings, thereby minimizing both morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to validate clinical outcomes of the pre-existing risk assessment scores as full Rockall score (FRS), Glasgow–Blatchford bleeding score (GBS), Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva (PNED) and AIMS65 (an acronym of albumin, International Normalized Ratio [INR], mental status, systolic blood pressure, age &gt; 65&#xa0;years) scores and a proposed acronymic A2BC score incorporating four variables as <i>a</i>ge, serum <i>a</i>lbumin, mean <i>b</i>lood pressure and serum <i>c</i>reatinine in our setting.</p> Methods <p>Prospective study over a three-year period of patients presenting with UGIB at the Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Medical College, Kolkata.</p> Results <p>The mean age of the 535 subject population was 52.84 ± 17.13&#xa0;years, with male predominance (<i>n</i> = 284, 53.08%) and a majority being non-variceal bleeders (<i>n</i> = 336, 62.8%). The median (IQR) of FRS, GBS, PNED, AIMS65 and A2BC scores with composite risk defined as the presence of one or more of the following: need for blood transfusion during hospitalization, therapeutic intervention in non-malignant NVUGIB, rebleeding and death both within 42&#xa0;days were 4 (3–6), 14 (12–16), 6 (2–10), 1 (0–2) and 1 (0–2) in comparison to those without the risk 2 (2–3), 10 (8–11), 3 (0–4), 0 (0–0) and 0 (0–0), respectively, all of which were statistically significant (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The discriminant cut-offs of FRS, GBS, PNED, AIMS65 and A2BC scores to predict composite risk of the subjects were ≥ 2, ≥ 7, ≥ 1, ≥ 1 and ≥ 1, respectively, with accuracies of 64.85%, 68.97%, 68.59%, 73.83%, and 77.57% respectively.</p> Conclusion <p>Our study validates the commonly used prognostic scores in our context and encourages further studies on the newly formulated A2BC score.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of risk assessment scores of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Proposal for a simplified score

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月29日

查看全文
  • Adrija Ganguly,
  • Tryambak Samanta,
  • Pusphak Das,
  • Manoj Kumar Gupta,
  • Saubhik Ghosh,
  • Sanjay Kumar Mandal,
  • Kalidas Biswas

摘要

Background and Objectives

Risk stratification of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is crucial for streamlining healthcare in resource-limited settings, thereby minimizing both morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to validate clinical outcomes of the pre-existing risk assessment scores as full Rockall score (FRS), Glasgow–Blatchford bleeding score (GBS), Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva (PNED) and AIMS65 (an acronym of albumin, International Normalized Ratio [INR], mental status, systolic blood pressure, age > 65 years) scores and a proposed acronymic A2BC score incorporating four variables as age, serum albumin, mean blood pressure and serum creatinine in our setting.

Methods

Prospective study over a three-year period of patients presenting with UGIB at the Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Medical College, Kolkata.

Results

The mean age of the 535 subject population was 52.84 ± 17.13 years, with male predominance (n = 284, 53.08%) and a majority being non-variceal bleeders (n = 336, 62.8%). The median (IQR) of FRS, GBS, PNED, AIMS65 and A2BC scores with composite risk defined as the presence of one or more of the following: need for blood transfusion during hospitalization, therapeutic intervention in non-malignant NVUGIB, rebleeding and death both within 42 days were 4 (3–6), 14 (12–16), 6 (2–10), 1 (0–2) and 1 (0–2) in comparison to those without the risk 2 (2–3), 10 (8–11), 3 (0–4), 0 (0–0) and 0 (0–0), respectively, all of which were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The discriminant cut-offs of FRS, GBS, PNED, AIMS65 and A2BC scores to predict composite risk of the subjects were ≥ 2, ≥ 7, ≥ 1, ≥ 1 and ≥ 1, respectively, with accuracies of 64.85%, 68.97%, 68.59%, 73.83%, and 77.57% respectively.

Conclusion

Our study validates the commonly used prognostic scores in our context and encourages further studies on the newly formulated A2BC score.

Graphical Abstract