Comparison of risk scoring systems for the prediction of clinical outcomes in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective randomized study

Authors : Muhammed Bahaddin DURAK, Batuhan BAŞPINAR, İbrahim Ethem GÜVEN, İlhami YÜKSEL

Pages : 643-649

Doi:10.32322/jhsm.1270718

View : 35 | Download : 75

Publication Date : 2023-05-31

Article Type : Research Paper

Abstract :Aim: Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(UGIB); is a typical gastrointestinal emergency. Detection of high-risk patients is crucial to organize medical care accordingly. This study aims to compare risk assessment scores for their ability to predict prognosis in nonvariceal-UGIB. Material and Method: Adult patients with nonvariceal-UGIB applied to the emergency department were recruited prospectively. Clinical and Complete Rockall score insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(RS);, Glascow-Blatchford score insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(GBS);, AIMS65, and T-Score were compared for endpoints: insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(1); need for endoscopic treatment, insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(2); hospitalization, insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(3); rebleeding, and insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(4); 30-day mortality. Results: A total of 469 patients were included. While 133 insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(28.0%); patients were discharged within 24 hours, 336 insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(72.0%); were hospitalized. The median length of hospital stay was 6.6 insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(0.0-8.0); days. Endoscopic treatment and transfusion were required in 109 insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(23.0%); and 255 insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(54.0%); patients, respectively. Rebleeding was observed in 36 insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(8.0%); patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 11.0 %. Complete Rockall score was superior among all risk scores regarding the prediction of the need for endoscopic treatment insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(AUC: 0.707, p 0.05);. AIMS65 score insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(AUC: 0.810, p 0.05);. Conclusion: Complete RS and AIMS65 scores are valuable tools to determine UGIB-related endpoints insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(need for intervention, hospitalization, rebleeding, and mortality);. Identifying high-risk patients using the risk scoring systems and performing endoscopy in this group may improve clinical outcomes, while their sensitivity is inadequate in the low-risk patients.
Keywords : Gastrointestinal hemoraji, Endoskopi, Risk değerlendirmesi, Prognoz