Hospitalization for peptic ulcer bleeding: evaluation of a risk scoring system in clinical practice

Garripoli, A.; Mondardini, A.; Turco, Danilo; Martinoglio, P.; Secreto, P.; Ferrari, A

doi:10.1016/s1590-8658(00)80839-7

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Rockall scoring system has been validated on several occasions, taking account of changes in endoscopic and medical therapeutic approaches [12][13][14][15][16][17]. To date, however, there are no reports of the results with this scoring system in multicenter Italian trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage before and after the adoption of the Rockall score, in the Italian Gastroenterology Units

Soncini

Triossi

Leo

et al. 2007

European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage before and after the adoption of the Rockall score, in the Italian Gastroenterology Units

Soncini

Triossi

Leo

et al. 2007

European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The GBS 4 , 5 , PRS 6 , 7 , CRS 8 , 9 , and CSMCPI 10 - 12 scores were calculated for all patients according to the criteria stated in the original articles. According to the original articles, the cut-off values used for the prediction of high-risk patients were GBS>0, PRS>0, CRS>2, and CSMCPI ≥5.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 In recent years, several practice guidelines and risk scores that combine clinical and endoscopic parameters have been developed to assist physicians in the early stages of decision making. 3 The most widely quoted are the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) 4 , 5 and the pre-endoscopic Rock all score (PRS) 6 , 7 , both of which consider only pre-endoscopy criteria, and the complete Rockall score (CRS) 8 , 9 and the Cedars–Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index (CSMCPI), 10 - 12 both of which have additional endoscopic criteria. However, whether any of these tools are sufficiently predictive to serve as a decision guide for emergency physicians remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tuncer¹,

Yardan²,

Akdemir³

et al. 2018

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Other systems have looked to identify those at low risk when presenting with AUGIB (15). Yet other groups have looked at risk of early re‐bleeding and mortality risk in AUGIB (16–19). A prospective comparison study identified the Forrest classification as the most accurate in predicting rebleeding rate and mortality (20)…”

Section: Practical Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

There Is No Excuse for Mortality Due to Lack of Competency and Training of Paediatric Endoscopists in Gastrointestinal Bleeding Therapy in 2018

Thomson¹

2018

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in children is possibly the last medical emergency which continues to lead to the death of a child due to the lack of competency/clinical judgement of the doctor, as opposed to the disease itself, leading to mortality despite optimum medical intervention. This is unacceptable in any circumstances in 2018. It occurs due to a number of conspiring factors including lack of appreciation of the clinical presentation requiring urgent endoscopic intervention; misapprehension of the urgency of timing required of such an intervention predicated on the severity of the gastrointestinal (GI) bleed; lack of application of a paediatric-specific validated score predicting for such endoscopic intervention; lack of skill in endo-haemostatic intervention techniques by paediatric endoscopists; poor training in such techniques among paediatric endoscopists; paucity of cases with lack of exposure of the paediatric endoscopist regularly to enable skills to be maintained, once acquired; reluctance of adult endoscopists in many centres to support paediatric GI bleeding services. In essence then the paediatric GI community urgently needs to identify centres of excellence to whom these children should be transferred. Transfer is safe in all but the most critical cases once stabilised with transfusion, octreotide/terlipressin and iv proton pump inhibitors. The resources are country-dependent but this is really no excuse. We must not let this parlous state of affairs continue. Solutions are explored in this article and please let this serve as a call to action for all those involved in this continuing debacle in order to save “save-able” lives.

show abstract

Hospitalization for peptic ulcer bleeding: evaluation of a risk scoring system in clinical practice

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

Management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage before and after the adoption of the Rockall score, in the Italian Gastroenterology Units

Management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage before and after the adoption of the Rockall score, in the Italian Gastroenterology Units

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

There Is No Excuse for Mortality Due to Lack of Competency and Training of Paediatric Endoscopists in Gastrointestinal Bleeding Therapy in 2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About