Aim: The aim of this study was to externally validate the four commonly used scoring systems in the risk stratification of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB).
Methods: Patients of UGIB who underwent endoscopy within 24 h of presentation were stratified prospectively using the pre-endoscopy Rockall score (PRS) >0, complete Rockall score (CRS) >2, Glasgow Blatchford bleeding scores (GBS) >3, and modified GBS (m-GBS) >3 scores. Patients were followed up to 30 days. Prognostic accuracy of the scores was done by comparing areas under curve (AUC) in terms of overall risk stratification, re-bleeding, mortality, need for intervention, and length of hospitalization.
Results: One hundred and seventy-five patients were studied. All four scores performed better in the overall risk stratification on AUC [PRS = 0.566 (CI: 0.481-0.651; p-0.043)/CRS = 0.712 (CI: 0.634-0.790); p<0.001)/GBS = 0.810 (CI: 0.744-0.877; p->0.001); m-GBS = 0.802 (CI: 0.734-0.871; p<0.001)], whereas only CRS achieved significance in identifying re-bleed [AUC-0.679 (CI: 0.579-0.780; p = 0.003)]. All the scoring systems except PRS were found to be significantly better in detecting 30-day mortality with a high AUC (CRS = 0.798; p-0.042)/GBS = 0.833; p-0.023); m-GBS = 0.816; p-0.031). All four scores demonstrated significant accuracy in the risk stratification of non-variceal patients; however, only GBS and m-GBS were significant in variceal etiology. Higher cutoff scores achieved better sensitivity/specificity [RS > 0 (50/60.8), CRS > 1 (87.5/50.6), GBS > 7 (88.5/63.3), m-GBS > 7(82.3/72.6)] in the risk stratification.
Conclusion: GBS and m-GBS appear to be more valid in risk stratification of UGIB patients in this region. Higher cutoff values achieved better predictive accuracy.
Keywords: Gastrointestinal bleed; Glasgow Blatchford score; Re-bleeding; Risk stratification; Rockall score.