TY - JOUR
T1 - ABC score
T2 - a new risk score that accurately predicts mortality in acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: an international multicentre study
AU - Laursen, Stig Borbjerg
AU - Oakland, Kathryn
AU - Laine, Loren
AU - Bieber, Vered
AU - Marmo, Riccardo
AU - Redondo-Cerezo, Eduardo
AU - Dalton, Harry R
AU - Ngu, Jeffrey
AU - Schultz, Michael
AU - Soncini, Marco
AU - Gralnek, Ian
AU - Jairath, Vipul
AU - Murray, Iain A
AU - Stanley, Adrian J
N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - OBJECTIVES: Existing scores are not accurate at predicting mortality in upper (UGIB) and lower (LGIB) gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new pre-endoscopy score for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB.DESIGN AND SETTING: International cohort study. Patients presenting to hospital with UGIB at six international centres were used to develop a risk score for predicting mortality using regression analyses. The score's performance in UGIB and LGIB was externally validated and compared with existing scores using four international datasets. We calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, specificities and outcome among patients classified as low risk and high risk.PARTICIPANTS AND RESULTS: We included 3012 UGIB patients in the development cohort, and 4019 UGIB and 2336 LGIB patients in the validation cohorts. Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities (ABC) score was closer associated with mortality in UGIB and LGIB (AUROCs: 0.81-84) than existing scores (AUROCs: 0.65-0.75; p≤0.02). In UGIB, patients with low ABC score (≤3), medium ABC score (4-7) and high ABC score (≥8) had 30-day mortality rates of 1.0%, 7.0% and 25%, respectively. Patients classified low risk using ABC score had lower mortality than those classified low risk with AIMS65 (threshold ≤1) (1.0 vs 4.5%; p<0.001). In LGIB, patients with low, medium and high ABC scores had in-hospital mortality rates of 0.6%, 6.3% and 18%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous scores, ABC score has good performance for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB, allowing early identification and targeted management of patients at high or low risk of death.
AB - OBJECTIVES: Existing scores are not accurate at predicting mortality in upper (UGIB) and lower (LGIB) gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new pre-endoscopy score for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB.DESIGN AND SETTING: International cohort study. Patients presenting to hospital with UGIB at six international centres were used to develop a risk score for predicting mortality using regression analyses. The score's performance in UGIB and LGIB was externally validated and compared with existing scores using four international datasets. We calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, specificities and outcome among patients classified as low risk and high risk.PARTICIPANTS AND RESULTS: We included 3012 UGIB patients in the development cohort, and 4019 UGIB and 2336 LGIB patients in the validation cohorts. Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities (ABC) score was closer associated with mortality in UGIB and LGIB (AUROCs: 0.81-84) than existing scores (AUROCs: 0.65-0.75; p≤0.02). In UGIB, patients with low ABC score (≤3), medium ABC score (4-7) and high ABC score (≥8) had 30-day mortality rates of 1.0%, 7.0% and 25%, respectively. Patients classified low risk using ABC score had lower mortality than those classified low risk with AIMS65 (threshold ≤1) (1.0 vs 4.5%; p<0.001). In LGIB, patients with low, medium and high ABC scores had in-hospital mortality rates of 0.6%, 6.3% and 18%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous scores, ABC score has good performance for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB, allowing early identification and targeted management of patients at high or low risk of death.
KW - gastrointestinal bleeding
U2 - 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320002
DO - 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320002
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 32723845
SN - 0017-5749
VL - 70
SP - 707
EP - 716
JO - Gut
JF - Gut
IS - 4
ER -