Diagnostic accuracy of the Oakland score versus haemoglobin for predicting outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Abstract

BackgroundAcute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is a common cause of hospitalization. Recent guidelines recommend the use of prognostic scales for risk stratification. However, it remains unclear whether risk scores are more accurate than some simpler prognostic variables. ObjectiveTo compare the predictive values of haemoglobin alone and the Oakland score for predicting outcomes in ALGIB patients. DesignSingle-centre, retrospective study at a University Hospital. Data were extracted from the hospital's clinical records. The Oakland score was calculated at admission. Study outcomes were defined according to the original article describing the Oakland score: safe discharge (the primary Oakland score outcome), transfusion, rebleeding, readmission, therapeutic intervention and death. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve and accuracy using haemoglobin and the Oakland score were calculated for each outcome. ResultsTwo hundred and fifty-eight patients were included. Eighty-four (32.6%) needed transfusion, 50 (19.4%) presented rebleeding, 31 (12.1%) required therapeutic intervention, 20 (7.8%) were readmitted and six (2.3%) died. There were no differences in the AUROC curve values for haemoglobin versus the Oakland score with regard to safe discharge (0.82 (0.77–0.88) vs 0.80 (0.74–0.86), respectively) or to therapeutic intervention and death. Haemoglobin was significantly better for predicting transfusion and rebleeding, and the Oakland score was significantly better for predicting readmission. ConclusionIn our study, the Oakland score did not perform better than haemoglobin alone for predicting the outcome of patients with ALGIB. The usefulness of risk scores for predicting outcomes in clinical practice remains uncertain.