Comparison of Risk Scoring Systems in Hospitalised Patients who Develop Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

(1) Background: Predicting which patients with upper gastro-intestinal bleeding (UGIB) will receive intervention during urgent endoscopy can allow for better triaging and resource utilization but remains sub-optimal. Using machine learning modelling we aimed to devise an improved endoscopic intervention predicting tool. (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with UGIB between 2012–2018 who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) during hospitalization. We assessed the correlation between various parameters with endoscopic intervention and examined the prediction performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and the pre-endoscopic Rockall score for endoscopic intervention. We also trained and tested a new machine learning-based model for the prediction of endoscopic intervention. (3) Results: A total of 883 patients were included. Risk factors for endoscopic intervention included cirrhosis (9.0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), syncope at presentation (19.3% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.01), early EGD (6.8 h vs. 17.0 h, p < 0.01), pre-endoscopic administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) (43.4% vs. 31.0%, p < 0.01) and erythromycin (17.2% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.01). Higher GBS (11 vs. 9, p < 0.01) and pre-endoscopy Rockall score (4.7 vs. 4.1, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with endoscopic intervention; however, the predictive performance of the scores was low (AUC of 0.54, and 0.56, respectively). A combined machine learning-developed model demonstrated improved predictive ability (AUC 0.68) using parameters not included in standard GBS. (4) Conclusions: The GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall score performed poorly in endoscopic intervention prediction. An improved predictive tool has been proposed here. Further studies are needed to examine if predicting this important triaging decision can be further optimized.

/pdf/a-novel-prediction-tool-for-endoscopic-intervention-in-3hnpdnrf.pdf

A Novel Prediction Tool for Endoscopic Intervention in Patients with Acute Upper Gastro-Intestinal Bleeding

Cost-effectiveness of check of medication appropriateness: methodological approach

Endoscopic Versus Conservative Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with Adherent Clot: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS). Methods: Patients with UGIB between January and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for 30-day mortality and composite endpoints risk of complications and need for intervention using areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with UGIB on admission and in-hospital UGIB. Results: A total of 252 patients were identified (67.5% men, mean age 63.8 ± 14.9 years). In-hospital UGIB occurred in 49.6%. AUROCs for 30-day mortality, risk of complications, and need for intervention (not applicable to RS) were 0.684 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.606–0.763), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.594–0.735), and 0.694 (95% CI: 0.612–0.775) for C-WATCH score, 0.724 (95% CI: 0.653–0.796) and 0.751 (95% CI: 0.687–0.815) for RS, 0.652 (95% CI: 0.57–0.735), 0.653 (95% CI: 0.579–0.727), and 0.673 (95% CI: 0.602–0.745) for p-RS and 0.652 (95% CI: 0.572–0.732), 0.663 (95% CI: 0.592–0.734), and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.683–0.821) for GBS. RS outperformed pre-endoscopic scores in predicting risk of complications, while there were no significant differences between pre-endoscopic scores except GBS outperforming p-RS in predicting need for intervention. The subgroup analysis obtained similar results. Positive predictive values for patients with estimated low risk for all three endpoints (C-WATCH score ≤1, RS ≤2, p-RS <1, and GBS ≤1) were 89%, 69%, 78%, and 92%. Conclusion: C-WATCH score performed similar to the established pre-endoscopic risk scores in patients with UGIB regarding relevant patient-related endpoints with no significant differences between both the subgroups.

/pdf/comparison-of-pre-endoscopic-c-watch-score-with-established-2ikvtpeb.pdf

Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Background Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a frequently encountered condition in the Gastroenterology field with a mortality rate of 10-14%. Despite recent newer innovations and advancements in endoscopic techniques and available medications, the mortality rate associated with AUGIB remained persistently elevated. Aim To explore mortality, characteristics and outcome differences between hospitalized patients who develop AUGIB while in-hospital, and patients who initially present with AUGIB. Methods This is a retrospective of patients who presented to Northwell Health Staten Island University Hospital from October 2012 to October 2016 with AUGIB that was confirmed endoscopically. Patients were divided in two groups: Group 1 comprised patients who developed AUGIB during their hospital stay; group 2 consisted of patients who initially presented with AUGIB as their main complaint. Patient characteristics, time to endoscopy, endoscopy findings and interventions, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between groups. Results A total of 336 patients were included. Group 1 consisted of 139 patients and group 2 of 196 patients. Mortality was significantly higher in the 1st group compared to the 2nd (20% vs 3.1%, P ≤ 0.05). Increased length of stay (LOS) was noted in the 1st group (13 vs 6, P ≤ 0.05). LOS post-endoscopy, vasopressor use, number of packed red blood cell units and patients requiring fresh frozen plasma were higher in group 1. Inpatients were more likely to be on corticosteroids, antiplatelets and anticoagulants. Conversely, the mean time from bleeding to undergoing upper endoscopy was significantly lower in group 1 compared to group 2. Conclusion In-hospital AUGIB is associated with high mortality and morbidity despite a shorter time to endoscopy. Larger scale studies assessing the role of increased comorbidities and antithrombotic use in this setting are warranted.

In-hospital acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: What is the scope of the problem?

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Raymond Kwok

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

In-hospital acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: What is the scope of the problem?