A Comparative Analysis of Risk Scoring Systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed

Abstract

BackgroundUpper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB) is a life-threatening condition that presents as hematemesis (fresh blood), coffee-ground vomiting, or melena. Multiple scoring systems are developed to predict different clinical outcomes, which are important to managing UGIB and are essential to determining low and high-risk patients. The study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of risk scoring systems and their optimum cut-off values in the assessment of UGIB.MethodsThe prospective cross-sectional study included patients (N = 81) with acute UGIB. Four different proposed scores [Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), AIMS65, pre-endoscopic Rockall, and full Rockall scoring system] were used for evaluating patients with UGIB. The optimum cut-off values of these risk scores were used to predict the clinical outcomes.ResultsThe AIMS65 score [Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC): 0.91, cut-off: >1, sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 76.62%] and pre-Rockall were similar (AUROC: 0.91, cut-off: >0, sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 93.51%) at predicting mortality. The GBS (cut-off: >9, AUROC: 0.79, sensitivity: 69.23, specificity: 87.50) and AIMS65 scores (cut-off: >0, AUROC: 0.67, sensitivity: 72.31, specificity: 62.5) were good predictors of need for ICU care.ConclusionGBS was superior in predicting categorization into high risk and low risk, and endoscopic intervention, blood transfusion, and intensive care unit (ICU) care in UGIB patients. Pre-Rockall score and AIMS65 score were similar in predicting the mortality rate in UGIB.