Suppr超能文献

上消化道出血风险评分系统对急诊科患者临床结局预测的有效性及比较

The efficacy and comparison of upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scoring systems on predicting clinical outcomes among emergency unit patients.

作者信息

Arıkoğlu Sezer, Tezel Onur, Büyükturan Galip, Başgöz Bilgin Bahadır

机构信息

Gülhane School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Emrah/Etlik, Ankara, 06018, Turkey.

Gülhane School of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

BMC Gastroenterol. 2025 Feb 19;25(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s12876-025-03684-7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among emergency unit patients. Several scoring systems are verified for predicting hospitalization and mortality such as Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), AIMS65 score, Rockall score (RS), and International Bleeding Risk Score (INBS; ABC score). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and predictive value of these scoring systems.

METHODS

Adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled. The age, gender, complaints at admission, vitals and examination results, laboratory findings, outcomes, blood transfusion status, and endoscopic interventions were all reported, and GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores were calculated individually for all enrollies.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients were included. The median age of participants was 70 years (IQR (25-75%): 59-81), and 202 (65%) of them were male. The efficacy of all four scoring systems (GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC)) in predicting hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05 for all). ROC-AUC analysis was revealed that while GBS is the most beneficial in predicting hospitalization, INBS (ABC) has the best predictive value on mortality. Besides, the only scoring model with predictive value in determining the need for endoscopic intervention was RS (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that, among adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores could successfully predict hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality. However, the only scoring system that could be used to determine the need of endoscopic intervention is RS. Finally, we believe further studies with prospective enrollment would be beneficial for more accurate conclusions.

摘要

背景

胃肠道出血是急诊科患者发病和死亡的重要原因。已有多种评分系统被证实可用于预测住院情况和死亡率,如格拉斯哥布拉奇福德出血评分(GBS)、AIMS65评分、罗卡尔评分(RS)和国际出血风险评分(INBS;ABC评分)。本研究旨在评估这些评分系统的有效性和预测价值。

方法

回顾性纳入成年急诊科胃肠道出血患者。报告了患者的年龄、性别、入院时的主诉、生命体征和检查结果、实验室检查结果、结局、输血情况以及内镜干预情况,并为所有纳入患者分别计算GBS、AIMS65、RS和INBS(ABC)评分。

结果

共纳入311例患者。参与者的中位年龄为70岁(四分位间距(25 - 75%):59 - 81岁),其中202例(65%)为男性。发现所有四种评分系统(GBS、AIMS65、RS和INBS(ABC))在预测住院情况、输血需求、确定高危和低危患者以及死亡率方面均具有统计学意义(所有p值均<0.05)。ROC-AUC分析显示,虽然GBS在预测住院方面最具优势,但INBS(ABC)在预测死亡率方面具有最佳预测价值。此外,在确定内镜干预需求方面具有预测价值的唯一评分模型是RS(p<0.05)。

结论

本研究表明,在成年急诊科胃肠道出血患者中,GBS、AIMS65、RS和INBS(ABC)评分能够成功预测住院情况、输血需求、确定高危和低危患者以及死亡率。然而,可用于确定内镜干预需求的唯一评分系统是RS。最后,我们认为前瞻性纳入患者的进一步研究将有助于得出更准确的结论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7fcf/11840997/69cfee461a2f/12876_2025_3684_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验