Division of Internal Medicine, La Tour Hospital University of Geneva.
Division of Gastro-enterology and Hepatology, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2023;57(5):479-485. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001720. Epub 2022 Aug 30.
The ABC risk score identifies patients at high risk of mortality in acute lower and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We aimed to externally validate the ABC score while comparing it to other prognostication scales when assessing UGIB patients at high risk of negative outcomes before endoscopy.
UGIB patients from a national Canadian registry (REASON) were studied, with mortality prediction as a primary outcome. Secondary endpoints included prognostication of rebleeding, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU and hospitalization lengths of stay (LOS), and a previously proposed composite outcome measure. Univariable and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses compared discriminatory abilities of the ABC score to the AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford Scale (GBS), and clinical Rockall score.
The REASON registry included 2020 patients [89.4% nonvariceal; mean age (±SD): 66.3±16.4 y; 38.4% female]. Overall mortality, rebleeding, ICU admission, transfusion and composite score rates were 9.9%, 11.4%, 21.1%, 69.0%, and 67.3%, respectively. ICU and hospitalization LOS were 5.4±9.3 and 9.1±11.5 days, respectively. The ABC score displayed superior 30-day mortality prediction [0.78 (0.73; 0.83)] compared with GBS [0.69 (0.63; 0.75)] or clinical Rockall [0.64 (0.58; 0.70)] but not AIMS65 [0.73 (0.67; 0.79)]. Although most scales significantly prognosticated secondary outcomes in the univariable analysis except for ICU LOS, discriminatory abilities on areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were poor.
ABC and AIMS65 display similar good prediction of mortality. Clinical usefulness in prognosticating secondary outcomes was modest for all scales, limiting their adoptions when informing early management of high-risk UGIB patients.
ABC 风险评分可识别急性下消化道和上消化道出血(UGIB)患者的高死亡率风险。我们旨在对外验证 ABC 评分,同时在评估内镜前高风险 UGIB 患者的不良预后时,将其与其他预后评分进行比较。
研究了来自加拿大国家登记处(REASON)的 UGIB 患者,以死亡率预测为主要终点。次要终点包括再出血、重症监护病房(ICU)入院、ICU 和住院时间(LOS)的预测,以及之前提出的复合结局测量。单变量和接受者操作特征曲线分析比较了 ABC 评分与 AIMS65、格拉斯哥 Blatchford 评分(GBS)和临床 Rockall 评分的鉴别能力。
REASON 登记处纳入了 2020 例患者[89.4%非静脉曲张性;平均年龄(±SD):66.3±16.4 y;38.4%为女性]。总体死亡率、再出血、ICU 入院、输血和复合评分发生率分别为 9.9%、11.4%、21.1%、69.0%和 67.3%。ICU 和住院 LOS 分别为 5.4±9.3 和 9.1±11.5 天。ABC 评分显示 30 天死亡率预测优于 GBS[0.78(0.73;0.83)]或临床 Rockall[0.64(0.58;0.70)],但不如 AIMS65[0.73(0.67;0.79)]。尽管大多数评分在单变量分析中对次要结局有显著的预后作用,但在接受者操作特征曲线分析的曲线下面积分析中,鉴别能力较差。
ABC 和 AIMS65 对死亡率的预测相似。在预测次要结局方面,所有评分的临床应用价值都不高,限制了它们在告知高风险 UGIB 患者早期管理时的应用。