Abstract
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common cause of hospital admission worldwide and several risk scores have been developed to predict clinically relevant outcomes. Despite the geriatric population being a high-risk group, age is often overlooked in the assessment of many risk scores. In this study we aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of six pre-endoscopic risk scoring systems in a geriatric population hospitalised with UGIB. We conducted a multi-center cross-sectional study and recruited 136 patients, 67 of these were 65-81.9 years old ("< 82 years"), 69 were 82-100 years old ("≥ 82 years"). We performed six pre-endoscopic risk scores very commonly used in clinical practice (i.e. Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding and its modified version, T-score, MAP(ASH), Canada-United Kingdom-Adelaide, AIMS65) in both age cohorts and compared their accuracy in relevant outcomes predictions: 30-days mortality since hospitalization, a composite outcome (need of red blood transfusions, endoscopic treatment, rebleeding) and length of hospital stay. T-score showed a significantly worse performance in mortality prediction in the "≥ 82 years" group (AUROC 0.53, 95% CI 0.27-0.75) compared to "< 82 years" group (AUROC 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-0.99). In the composite outcome prediction, except for T-score, younger participants had higher sensitivities than those in the "≥ 82 years" group. All risk scores showed low performances in the prediction of length of stay (AUROCs ≤ 0.70), and, except for CANUKA score, there was a significant difference in terms of accuracy among age cohorts. Most used UGIB risk scores have a low accuracy in the prediction of clinically relevant outcomes in the geriatric population; hence novel scores should account for age or advanced age in their assessment.