Clinical Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcomes of Small Bowel Bleeding

Background: The aim was to assess the clinical Glasgow–Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (CRS), and AIMS65 score in predicting outcomes (rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay) among patients with small bowel hemorrhage.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with small bowel bleeding (SBB). Rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay was investigated by 3 scoring systems. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to analyze the performance of 3 scoring systems.Results: Among 162 included patients, the scores of rebleeding, intervention, and length of stay ≥10 days groups were higher than no rebleeding, non-intervention, and length of stay <10 days groups, respectively (P < .05). The CRS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems demonstrated statistically significant difference in predicting rebleeding (AUROC 0.693 vs. 0.790 vs. 0.740; all P < .01), intervention (AUROC: 0.726 vs. 0.825 vs. 0.773; all P < .01) and length of stay (AUROC 0.651 vs. 0.631 vs. 0.635; all P < .05). Higher cut-off scores achieved better sensitivity/specificity [rebleeding (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); need for intervention (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); length of stay (CRS > 0, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 1)] in the risk stratification.Conclusions: The GBS system is reliable to be recommended for routine use in predicting rebleeding and the need for intervention for early decision making in patients with SBB. The 3 scoring systems are poorly useful in predicting length of stay.     

Validation of prognostic scores for clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding

Background. The Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford, and AIMS65 are useful and validated scoring systems for predicting the outcomes of patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no validated evidence for using them to predict outcomes on variceal bleeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the prognostic accuracy of different nonvariceal bleeding scores with other liver-specific scoring systems in cirrhotic patients. Material and methods. A retrospective multicenter study that included 160 cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. The AUROC’s to predict in-hospital mortality, and rebleeding, were analyzed for each scoring system.Results. Overall in-hospital mortality occurred in 13% and in-hospital rebleeding in 12% of patients. The systems with the best AUROC value for predicting mortality were MELD (0.828; 95% CI 0.748-0.909), and AIMS65 (0.817; 95% CI 0.724-0.909). The best score systems for predicting rebleeding were Glasgow-Blatchford (0.756; 95% CI 0.640-0.827), and Rockall (0.691; 95% CI 0.580-0.802).Conclusions. In addition to liver-specific scores, the AIMS65 score is accurate for predicting in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. Other scoring systems might be useful for predicting significant clinical outcomes in these patients.     

Urgent endoscopy in severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: does the Glasgow-Blatchford score help endoscopists?

Abstract

Objective. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) has been validated to select severe patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH). The aim was to compare the yield of the triage based on the GBS with an endoscopist' decision to perform an urgent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in newly admitted patients and inpatients with UGIH in the setting of an endoscopy on-duty service in 13 tertiary care centers. Material and methods. During a 6-month period, GBS and patient data were collected for all patients with non-variceal UGIH for whom an UGIE was requested in emergency. If patients experienced severe endoscopic lesion, surgery or death, they were categorized as patients who had been at need for urgent UGIE. Results. The 102 UGIH patients included (mean age 62, men 73%) had a median GBS of 12 (range 0–21), significantly lower for new patients compared with inpatients (11, range 0–21 vs. 14, range 2–21, respectively, p = 0.001). If triage for urgent UGIE had followed the GBS, no more patients would have had an urgent UGIE compared with what endoscopists performed (99/102 (97%) vs. 92/102 (90%), respectively, p = 0.09). Sensitivity for the detection of patients who needed an UGIE was no different with the GBS than endoscopists (98% vs. 98%, respectively, p = 0.10) and both showed insufficient specificity (4% and 19%, respectively). Conclusions. The GBS does not detect more patients at need for urgent UGIE than on-duty endoscopists. Both methods lead to numerous unjustified UGIEs. A score that would equally help endoscopists in their decision to intervene urgently is still warranted.     

Prognostic value of risk scoring systems for cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND Acute variceal bleeding is one of the deadliest complications of cirrhosis,with a high risk of in-hospital rebleeding and mortality.Some risk scoring systems to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been developed.However,for cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding,data regarding the predictive value of these prognostic scores in predicting in-hospital outcomes are limited and controversial.AIM To validate and compare the overall performance of selected prognostic scoring systems for predicting in-hospital outcomes in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding.METHODS From March 2017 to June 2019,cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University.The clinical Rockall score(CRS),AIMS65 score(AIMS65),GlasgowBlatchford score(GBS),modified GBS(m GBS),Canada-United KingdomAustralia score(CANUKA),Child-Turcotte-Pugh score(CTP),model for endstage liver disease(MELD) and MELD-Na were calculated.The overall performance of these prognostic scoring systems was evaluated.RESULTS A total of 330 cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding were enrolled;the rates of in-hospital rebleeding and mortality were 20.3% and 10.6%,respectively.For inhospital rebleeding,the discriminative ability of the CTP and CRS were clinically acceptable,with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves(AUROCs) of 0.717(0.648-0.787) and 0.716(0.638-0.793),respectively.The other tested scoring systems had poor discriminative ability(AUROCs 0.7).For inhospital mortality,the CRS,CTP,AIMS65,MELD-Na and MELD showed excellent discriminative ability(AUROCs 0.8).The AUROCs of the m GBS,CANUKA and GBS were relatively small,but clinically acceptable(AUROCs 0.7).Furthermore,the calibration of all scoring systems was good for either inhospital rebleeding or death.CONCLUSION For cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding,in-hospital rebleeding and mortality rates remain high.The CTP and CRS can be used clinically to predict in-hospital rebleeding.The performances of the CRS,CTP,AIMS65,MELD-Na and MELD are excellent at predicting in-hospital mortality.     

Risk analysis of 30-day rebleeding in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and study aimsThis study aimed to compare the prognostic value of ABC, Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall and AIMS65 scoring systems in predicting rebleeding rate within 30 days after endoscopic treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB).Patients and methodsA total of 93 patients with ANVUGIB were selected as the study subjects and they were divided into groups according to whether there was rebleeding in the 30 days’ follow-up period. 7 patients with rebleeding within 30 days were included in the rebleeding group, and the other 86 patients without rebleeding were included in the non-rebleeding group.ResultsBy drawing ROC curve, we found that ABC scoring system had the highest accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65]) in predicting rebleeding within 30 days compared with the AIMS65 (0.56; P < 0.001), RS (0.51; P < 0.001), and GBS (0.61; P < 0.001). ABC scoring system showed the highest risk of rebleeding in 30 days. When the 4 scoring standards were judged as medium–high risk patients, the efficacy of the ABC scoring system in predicting the risk of rebleeding at 30 days for ANVUGIB was found to be the best in diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionComprehensive evaluation showed that ABC score had the highest prediction accuracy. The negative differential significance of each evaluation method was great, that is, the risk of rebleeding was generally low when judged as low risk patients, while the value of predicting rebleeding was limited when judged as medium and high risk patients.     

三种评分系统在肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血患者风险评估中的应用

目的探讨MELD(model for end-stage liver disease)、GBS(glasgow-blatchford score)、AIMS65评分系统在肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血(esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding,EGVB)患者风险评估中的临床应用价值。方法对天津医科大学总医院消化内科2015年1月1日至2018年3月1日入院的182例肝硬化EGVB患者进行回顾分析,依据MELD、GBS、AIMS65评分系统标准针对每例患者进行评分,评估各评分系统正确将肝硬化EGVB归为"高风险患者"的能力,并绘制受试者工作特征曲线(receiver-operating characteristic curve,ROC),采用曲线下面积(area under curve,AUC)评估各评分系统针对不同临床结局(输血、再出血、住院死亡)的预测能力,AUC>0.7认为有较高准确性。结果临床结局包括输血113例(62.1%)、再出血31例(17.0%)、死亡11例(6.0%)。MELD评分得分为7~25分,其中得分<9分4例(2.2%);GBS评分得分为3~16分;AIMS65评分得分为0~3分,其中得分0~1分139例(76.4%,0分68例、1分71例)。MELD、GBS、AIMS65评分系统预测输血的AUC分别为0.514(95%CI:0.439~0.589)、0.681(95%CI:0.608~0.748)、0.669(95%CI:0.596~0.737);预测再出血的AUC分别为0.525(95%CI:0.449~0.599)、0.528(95%CI:0.453~0.602)、0.580(95%CI:0.505~0.652);预测住院死亡的AUC分别为0.642(95%CI:0.567~0.711)、0.581(95%CI:0.505~0.653)、0.786(95%CI:0.719~0.843),AIMS65优于MELD(P=0.0836)和GBS(P=0.0470)。结论GBS能正确将肝硬化EGVB患者归类为"高风险人群",优于AIMS65和MELD评分系统。对于肝硬化EGVB患者,3种评分系统对输血和再出血的预测价值均不高,AIMS65对住院死亡有较高的预测价值。     

Second prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG

Objective: The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) could be used to stratify patients in different risk groups. No studies have reported the role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement in a subgroup of patients with a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg) for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. This study was designed to evaluate the benefit of TIPS in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg) for rebleeding and survival.

Material and methods: We included 46 cirrhotic patients with a history of variceal bleeding and a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg) admitted to our hospital between January 2013 and June 2014 (TIPS group). Patients were matched by Child-Pugh scores to patients in our historical cohort hospitalized for prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding between April 2011 and December 2012 (propranolol?+?EVL group). The end points included time to significant rebleeding from portal hypertensive sources, 1-year survival, and time to the occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy (HE).

Results: The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of variceal rebleeding was significantly higher in the TIPS group than in the propranolol?+?EVL group (85% vs. 54%, p?=?0.01). The 1-year survival rates were not different between the two groups (85% vs. 89%, p?=?0.591). The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of HE was significantly lower in the TIPS group than in the propranolol?+?EVL group (67% vs. 91%, p?=?0.003).

Conclusions: TIPS was more effective than propranolol?+?EVL in preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with a high HVPG (≥20?mmHg). During the limited follow-up, survival was similar in the two groups.     

Scoring systems for peptic ulcer bleeding: which one to use?

AIM To compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score(GBS), Rockall score(RS) and Baylor bleeding score(BBS) in predicting clinical outcomes and need for interventions in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS Between January 2008 and December 2013, 1012consecutive patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding(PUB) were prospectively followed. The pre-endoscopic RS, BBS and GBS, as well as the post-endoscopic diagnostic scores(RS and BBS) were calculated for all patients according to their urgent upper endoscopy findings. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics(AUROC) curves were calculated for the prediction of lethal outcome, rebleeding, needs for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention, and the optimal cutoff values were evaluated.RESULTS PUB accounted for 41.9% of all upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, 5.2% patients died and 5.4% patients underwent surgery. By comparing the AUROC curves of the aforementioned pre-endoscopic scores, the RS best predicted lethal outcome(AUROC 0.82 vs 0.67 vs0.63, respectively), but the GBS best predicted need for hospital-based intervention or 30-d mortality(AUROC0.84 vs 0.57 vs 0.64), rebleeding(AUROC 0.75 vs 0.61 vs 0.53), need for blood transfusion(AUROC 0.83 vs0.63 vs 0.58) and surgical intervention(0.82 vs 0.63 vs 0.52) The post-endoscopic RS was also better than the post-endoscopic BBS in predicting lethal outcome(AUROC 0.82 vs 0.69, respectively).CONCLUSION The RS is the best predictor of mortality and the GBS is the best predictor of rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention in patients with PUB. There is no one 'perfect score' and we suggest that these two tests be used concomitantly.     

Different scoring systems to predict 6-week mortality in cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding: a retrospective analysis of 202 patients

Objective: Determine the optimal scoring system for evaluation of 6-week bleeding-related mortality in liver cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB). Prediction effects of six scoring systems, AIMS65 score, Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) score, full Rockall (FRS) score, the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), the MELD-Na model and the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score were analyzed in this study.

Methods: A total of 202 liver cirrhosis patients with AVB were enrolled between 1 January 2014, and 31 December 2014. All subjects were scored according to AIMS65, GBS, FRS, MELD, MELD-Na and CTP scoring systems on the first day of admission. The primary endpoint of the study was 6-week mortality. The prediction effect of these scoring systems for 6-week mortality was compared by ROC curve and the area under the curve (AUC).

Results: The scores of nonsurvival group evaluated by the AIMS65, GBS, FRS, MELD, MELD-Na and CTP (2.6?±?1.1, 12.9?±?2.7, 6.6?±?1.8, 26.9?±?6.5, 31.6?±?9.3, 9.6?±?2.2, respectively) were higher than those of the survival group (1.2?±?1.1, 10.2?±?3.4, 5.1?±?1.6, 21.0?±?6.4, 22.8?±?8.2, 7.7?±?2.0, respectively) (p?Conclusions: AIMS65 and MELD-Na scoring systems are recommended for evaluation of 6-week bleeding-related mortality in liver cirrhosis patients with AVB.     

Platelet-albumin-bilirubin score-a predictor of outcome of acute variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND The albumin-bilirubin(ALBI) score was validated as a prognostic indicator in patients with liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Incorporating platelet count in the platelet-albumin-bilirubin(PALBI) score improved validity in predicting outcome of patients undergoing resection and ablation.AIM To evaluate the PALBI score in predicting outcome of acute variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.METHODS The data of 1517 patients with cirrhosis presenting with variceal bleeding were analyzed. Child Turcotte Pugh(CTP) class, Model of End-stage Liver Disease(MELD), ALBI and PALBI scores were calculated on admission, and were correlated to the outcome of variceal bleeding. Areas under the receivingoperator characteristic curve(AUROC) were calculated for survival and rebleeding.RESULTS Mean age was 52.6 years; 1176 were male(77.5%), 69 CTP-A(4.5%), 434 CTP-B(29.2%), 1014 CTP-C(66.8%); 306 PALBI-1(20.2%), 285 PALBI-2(18.8%), and 926 PALBI-3(61.1%). Three hundred and thirty-two patients died during hospitalization(21.9%). Bleeding-related mortality occurred in 11% of CTP-B,28% of CTP-C, in 21.8% of PALBI-2 and 34.4% of PALBI-3 patients. The AUROC for predicting survival of acute variceal bleeding was 0.668, 0.689, 0.803 and 0.871 for CTP, MELD, ALBI and PALBI scores, respectively. For predicting rebleeding the AUROC was 0.681, 0.74, 0.766 and 0.794 for CTP, MELD, ALBI and PALBI scores, respectively.CONCLUSION PALBI score on admission is a good prognostic indicator for patients with acute variceal bleeding and predicts early mortality and rebleeding.     

ORBIT score: an useful predictor of small bowel rebleeding in patients under chronic anticoagulation

Background and study aims: Available scoring systems to assess the risk for major bleeding in patients on chronic anticoagulation seem inadequate in predicting higher diagnostic yields of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) or higher rebleeding rates in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of the new ORBIT score in predicting positive findings of SBCE or higher rebleeding rates in chronically anticoagulated patients with suspected small bowel bleeding.

Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis of 570 patients who consecutively underwent SBCE for the study of suspected small bowel bleeding. For each of the 67 patients who were on chronic anticoagulation, ORBIT score (Older age, Reduced hemoglobin/hematocrit, Bleeding history, Insufficient kidney function and Treatment with antiplatelets) was calculated. Patients were classified as high-risk (ORBIT score?≥4) or low/intermediate-risk (ORBIT score?<4). Data on SBCE findings, diagnostic yield and rebleeding were compared between groups.

Results: When ORBIT score was calculated, 41 and 26 patients were classified as low/intermediate-risk and high-risk, respectively. When low/intermediate-risk and high-risk groups were compared, no differences were found in the diagnostic yield of SBCE (39.0% vs. 23.1%; p?=?.176). However, in high-risk patients, rebleeding was significantly more common than in low/intermediate-risk patients (80.0% vs. 36.6%; p?=?.003).

Conclusions: In patients presenting with suspected small bowel bleeding and on chronic anticoagulation, the new ORBIT score seems promising in identifying those with a higher risk of rebleeding, in whom a closer follow-up and a more aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic strategy is advisable.     

Bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers: case-control study comparing angioembolization and surgery

Objectives: To compare the safety, efficacy and feasibility of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) and surgery in the treatment of bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers (BGDUs).

Materials and methods: The study group comprised patients receiving TAE or surgery for BGDUs after failed endoscopic hemostasis in Helsinki University Hospital (HUH) during 2000–2015. Hospital medical records provided study data. 30-d mortality and rebleeding rates were the primary outcomes. Postoperative complications, blood transfusion rate, and the durations of intensive care and hospital admissions were the secondary outcomes.

Results: During the study period, BGDUs lead to 1583 hospital admissions. TAE or surgery was necessary on 85 (5.4%) patients, 43 receiving surgery and 42 TAE. Out of 42, 16 received prophylactic TAE. Two underwent angiography and TAE to localize the bleeding. The remaining 24 received TAE for active or recurrent bleeding after endoscopy. The comparison of TAE (n?=?24) and surgery (n?=?43) included only patients with active or recurrent bleeding. Mortality rate was 12.5% after TAE and 25.6% after surgery (p?=?0.347). Rebleeding rate was 25% after TAE and 16.3% after surgery (p?=?0.641). Postprocedural complications were less frequent after TAE than surgery (37.5 vs. 67.4%, p?=?0.018). Other secondary outcomes did not differ. Out of 85 procedures, 14 (16.5%) took place between midnight and 8 a.m., all nighttime interventions being surgeries.

Conclusions: Mortality and rebleeding rates did not differ between TAE and surgery. With less postoperative complications, TAE should be the preferred hemostatic method when endoscopy fails.     

C-reactive protein for simple prediction of mortality in patients with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A retrospective analysis

In upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), scoring systems using multiple variables were developed to predict patient outcomes. We evaluated serum C-reactive protein (CRP) for simple prediction of patient mortality after acute non-variceal UGIB.The associated factors for 30-day mortality was investigated by regression analysis in patients with acute non-variceal UGIB (N = 1232). The area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve was analyzed with serum CRP in these patients and a prospective cohort (N = 435). The discriminant validity of serum CRP was compared to other prognostic scoring systems by means of AUROC curve analysis.Serum CRP was significantly higher in the expired than survived patients (median, 4.53 vs 0.49; P < .001). The odds ratio of serum CRP was 4.18 (2.10–9.27) in multivariate analysis. The odds ratio of high serum CRP was higher than Rockall score (4.15 vs 1.29), AIMS65 (3.55 vs 1.71) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (4.32 vs 1.08) in multivariate analyses. The AUROC of serum CRP at bleeding was 0.78 for 30-day mortality (P < .001). In the validation set, serum CRP was also significantly higher in the expired than survived patients, of which AUROC was 0.73 (P < .001). In predicting 30-day mortality, the AUROC with serum CRP was not inferior to that of other scoring systems.Serum CRP at bleeding can be simply used to identify the patients with high mortality after acute non-variceal UGIB.     

Differences in the clinical course of 516 Japanese patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding between weekday and weekend admissions

Background and aims: Patients suspected of having upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) admitted during the weekend tend to have a poor outcome in western countries. However, no Japanese studies have been reported on this matter. We aimed to evaluate differences in the clinical course of patients with UGIB between weekday and weekend admissions in Japan.

Methods: Medical records of patients who had undergone emergency endoscopy for UGIB were retrospectively reviewed. The severity of UGIB was evaluated using the Glasgow-Blatchford (GB) and AIMS65 score. Patients in whom UGIB was stopped and showed improved iron deficiency anemia after admission were considered as having a good clinical course.

Results: We reviewed 516 consecutive patients and divided them into two groups: Group A (daytime admission on a weekday: 234 patients) and Group B (nighttime or weekend admission: 282 patients). There was no significant difference in GB and AIM65 scores between the Groups. The proportions of patients with good clinical course were not significantly different between groups (A, 67.5% and B, 67.0%; p?=?.90). However, patients in Group B underwent hemostatic treatments more frequently compared with those in Group A (58.5% vs 47.4%, p?=?.012). Multivariate analysis showed that taking acid suppressants, no need for blood transfusions, use of hemostatic treatments, and GB score <12 were associated with a good clinical course.

Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with UGIB admitted during daytime on weekdays and those admitted at nighttime or weekends partly owing to the sufficient performance of endoscopic hemostatic treatments.     

Model to predict rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

Background and Aim: Following endoscopic therapy, up to 20% of patients with non‐variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage experience rebleeding. The aim of the present study was to determine risk factors for recurrent hemorrhage in these patients. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2004, with non‐variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Patients were evaluated for rebleeding within 30 days of successful therapeutic endoscopy. Using the hospital's endoscopic database, 236 patients were identified. Risk factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression with backward selection. Internal validation was carried out using bootstrapping. Results: Six risk factors were identified: failure to use a Proton pump inhibitor post‐procedure (P = 0.056), Endoscopically demonstrated bleeding (P = 0.053), Peptic ulcer as the bleeding source (P = 0.018), Treatment with epinephrine monotherapy (P = 0.0026), post‐procedure Intravenous or low molecular weight heparin use (P = 0.0014), and moderate or severe Cirrhosis (P = 0.032) (PEPTIC). The risk of rebleeding increased as the number of risk factors present increased. The observed rates of rebleeding were: 7.1%, 16.4%, 37.0%, 75.0% and 100% for zero, one, two, three or four risk factors, respectively (no patients had five or six risk factors present). The bias‐adjusted area under the receiver–operator characteristic curve for the number of risk factors predicting rebleeding was 0.69. Conclusions: We have identified six easily remembered risk factors, which, when summed, predict recurrent hemorrhage following endoscopic therapy for non‐variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.     

Upper esophageal sphincter abnormalities and high-resolution esophageal manometry findings in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux

Background: The association between laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and abnormalities of upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and esophageal motility is not clearly known. High-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) has allowed accurate measurement and evaluation of UES and esophageal function.

Goals: To evaluate the UES function and esophageal motility using HREM in patients with LPR and compare them to patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Study: All patients evaluated for GERD or LPR symptoms with esophageal function testing including HREM, ambulatory distal pH monitoring and upper endoscopy between 2006 and 2014 were retrospectively studied (n?=?220). The study group (group A, n?=?57) consisted of patients diagnosed with LPR after comprehensive evaluation. They were compared to patients who had typical GERD symptoms only (group B, n?=?98) and patients with both GERD and LPR symptoms (group C, n?=?65).

Results: Abnormalities in UES pressures and relaxation were found in about one-third of patients in all groups. There were no significant differences between the groups. Group B had higher prevalence of abnormal esophageal motility compared to others (group A vs. B vs. C?=?20.8% vs. 28% vs. 12.5%, p?=?.029). Group B patients also had higher prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus compared to others (group A vs. B vs. C?=?0% vs.12.2% vs. 4.6%, p?=?.01). Distal pH testing revealed no significant differences between the three groups.

Conclusions: Abnormal UES function was noted in one-third of patients with LPR or GERD. However, there were no abnormalities on esophageal function testing specific for LPR.     

Value of the APASL severity score in patients with acute variceal bleeding: a single center experience

Background

Acute variceal bleeding is a severe complication in patients with cirrhosis. The Asian Pacific Association for Study of the Liver (APASL) severity score was proposed in 2011. This score is used for evaluating the severity of acute variceal bleeding. However, as this score is largely based on expert opinion, it requires validation.

Aim

To determine the value of the APASL severity score.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients treated for acute variceal bleeding at Konkuk University Hospital from 2006 to 2011. The APASL severity score, Child-Pugh score, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score were calculated, and predictive values for treatment failure, rebleeding, and in-hospital mortality were compared by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC).

Results

A total of 136 patients were enrolled, and all patients were treated by endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and terlipressin combination therapy. Most patients were male (n = 123, 90.4 %), and the most common etiology was alcohol (n = 91, 66.9 %). Thirteen treatment failures, eight rebleedings, and seven in-hospital mortalities occurred. The AUROCs of the APASL severity score, Child-Pugh score, and MELD score were 0.760, 0.681, and 0.607 for treatment failure; 0.660, 0.714, and 0.677 for rebleeding; and 0.872, 0.847, and 0.735 for in-hospital mortality. A significant difference was only observed between the APASL severity score and MELD score for treatment failure (p = 0.0259).

Conclusion

APASL severity score was a useful method for predicting treatment failure. However, the predictive value for rebleeding and in-hospital mortality were not satisfactory.     

Model for end stage of liver disease (MELD) is better than the Child-Pugh score for predicting in-hospital mortality related to esophageal variceal bleeding

Aim: The Child Pugh and MELD are good methods for predicting mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. We investigated their performance as risk factors for failure to control bleeding, in-hospital overall mortality and death related to esophageal variceal bleeding episodes. Methods: From a previous collected database, 212 cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding admitted to our hospital were studied. The predictive capability of Child Pugh and MELD scores were compared using c statistics. Results: The Child-Pugh and MELD scores showed marginal capability for predicting failure to control bleeding (the area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) values were < 0.70 for both). The AUROC values for predicting inhospital overall mortality of Child-Pugh and MELD score were similar: 0.809 (CI 95%, 0.710 - 0.907) and 0.88 (CI 95% 0.77-0.99,) respectively. There was no significant difference between them (p > 0.05). The AU-ROC value of MELD for predicting mortality related to variceal bleeding was higher than the Child-Pugh score: 0.905 (CI 95% 0.801-1.00) vs 0.794 (CI 95% 0.676 - 0.913) respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusions: MELD and Child-Pugh were not efficacious scores for predicting failure to control bleeding. The Child-Pugh and MELD scores had similar capability for predicting in-hospital overall mortality. Nevertheless, MELD was significantly better than Child-Pugh score for predicting in-hospital mortality related to variceal bleeding.     

Left atrial thrombus and smoke resolution in patients with atrial fibrillation under chronic oral anticoagulation

Background

The study aimed to explore the resolution of left atrial and left atrial appendage (LAA) spontaneous echo-contrast or thrombus in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) under chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC).

Methods

A single-center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent a transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) for an electrical cardioversion was conducted.

Results

Among 277 TOE performed, 73 cases (26%) of LAA echo-contrast or thrombus were detected, 53 patients with LAA/LA echo-contrast (19%) and 20 (7%) with a thrombus. All patients were under chronic anticoagulation with a VKA (65%) or with a NOAC (35%). The Echo-contrast Group maintained the same OAC strategy in 49 patients (93%). The Thrombus Group kept the same OAC strategy with a NOAC in 6 cases (30%) and changed the strategy in 14 patients (70%), titrating NOAC dose in 1 (5%) and the VKA dose in 4 (20%) and switching from NOAC to VKA in 5 (25%), from VKA to NOAC in 3 (15%), and from NOAC to NOAC in 1 (5%). Smoke resolution was observed in 4/40 cases (10%) of the smoke group and thrombus resolution in 8/15 (53%) of the thrombus group. Patients with thrombus resolution had a lower CHA2DS2-Vasc score (3.5?±?2 vs 4?±?1, p?=?0.05), were more often under NOAC (37.5 vs 28%, p?=?0.07), and had a longer anticoagulation time (7.5 vs 4 months, p?=?0.08).

Conclusion (s)

Changing OAC strategy is associated with thrombus resolution in more than 50% of chronically anticoagulated patients.