Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 2, 2026

Measurement of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Transjugular Liver Biopsy
Published on: June 18, 2020
Prognostic value of risk scoring systems for cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding
Xin-Xing Tantai1, Na Liu1, Long-Bao Yang1
1Division of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710004, Shaanxi Province, China.
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), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), modified GBS (mGBS), Canada-United Kingdom-Australia score (CANUKA), Child-Turcotte-Pugh score (CTP), model for end-stage 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 in-hospital 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 in-hospital mortality, the CRS, CTP, AIMS65, MELD-Na and MELD showed excellent discriminative ability (AUROCs > 0.8). The AUROCs of the mGBS, CANUKA and GBS were relatively small, but clinically acceptable (AUROCs > 0.7). Furthermore, the calibration of all scoring systems was good for either in-hospital 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.
Related Concept Videos
Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol...
Esophageal Varices-I: Introduction
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Pathophysiologic Assessment and Liver Function Test
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT

