Application of four scoring systems on evaluation of the prognosis of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2018.04.005
- VernacularTitle:四种评分系统对急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血预后评估的应用研究
- Author:
Ningning ZHAO
1
;
Zhengyan SU
;
Chao SUN
;
Bangmao WANG
;
Kui JIANG
Author Information
1. 天津医科大学总医院消化科
- Keywords:
Prognosis;
Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding;
Scoring system
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
2018;35(4):248-252
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the predictive value of Admission-Rockall Score (aRS), Full-Rockall Score ( fRS ), Glasgow-Blatchford Score ( GBS ) and AIMS65 scoring systems for rebleeding, mortality, transfusion and clinical intervention of patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding ( ANVUGIB). Methods A retrospective study was performed on the data of 294 ANVUGIB inpatients in the Department of Gastroenterology of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital from January 2015 to September 2016. Each patient was graded using the four scoring systems. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ( AUC) about rebleeding, mortality, blood transfusion and clinical intervention was calculated using each system. Results For predicting rebleeding, fRS (AUC＝0. 696) and GBS (AUC＝0. 697) were both superior to aRS (AUC＝0. 609, P＜0. 05) and AIMS65 (AUC＝0. 571, P＜0. 05), and there was no significant difference on AUC between fRS and GBS (P＞0. 05). For predicting mortality, the AUC of aRS, fRS, GBS and AIMS65 were 0. 755, 0. 791, 0. 818, and 0. 780, respectively, and there were no significant differences (P＞0. 05). There were no significant differences in the predicting transfusion among four scoring systems, and the AUC was 0. 625, 0. 626, 0. 697 and 0. 658, respectively. Regarding clinical intervention treatment, fRS (AUC＝0. 661) was superior than that of aRS (AUC＝0. 520, P＜0. 05) and AIMS65 (AUC＝0. 545, P＜0. 05), and the AUC of GBS and three other scoring systems had no significant differences (P＞0. 05). Conclusion The four scoring systems are all with good predicting value on mortality of patients with ANVUGIB, while not on other aspects including rebleeding, transfusion and clinical intervention. fRS has a slightly better value on prediction of rebleeding and clinical intervention, and GBS is slightly better on prediction of rebleeding.
