Comparison of four scoring systems for risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

比较四种评分系统对上消化道出血风险分层的效果

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performances of the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall score (PRS), complete Rockall score (CRS), and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index (CSMCPI) in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). METHODS: Patients who were admitted to the emergency department because of UGIB and underwent endoscopy within the first 24 hour were included in this study. The GBS, PRS, CRS, and CSMCPI were propectively calculated. The performances of these scores were assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included in this study. For the prediction of high-risk patients, area under the curve (AUC) was obtained for GBS (0.912), PRS (0.968), CRS (0.991), and CSMCPI (0.918). For the prediction of rebleeding, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.656), PRS (0.625), CRS (0.701), and CSMCPI (0.612). For the prediction of 30-day mortality, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.658), PRS (0.757), CRS (0.823), and CSMCPI (0.745). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that effectiveness of CRS is higher than that of other scores in predicting high-risk patients, rebleeding and 30-day mortality in patients with UGIB.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。