Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 9, 2025
Integrated Compensatory Responses in a Human Model of Hemorrhage
Published on: November 20, 2016
Predictive Utility of Pre- and Post-Endoscopic Risk Scores and Hemodynamic Indexes in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal
Bedriye Müge Sönmez1, Elif Hamzaçebioğlu Kayışoğlu1, Gülşen Akçay1
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Purpose:
There is a controversy about risk scores for risk stratification of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) in the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to compare the prognostic utility of UGIB scores with perfusion index (PI) and shock index (SI) in these patient groups in the ED.
Patients And Methods:
A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on a convenience sample of patients with AUGIB who were admitted to the ED of a tertiary care hospital. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were used to evaluate the predictive performance of pre- and post-endoscopic risk scores, as well as hemodynamic indexes (PI and SI), in terms of composite endpoints.
Results:
Rockall Score (RS), Cedars Sinai Medical Centre Predictive Index (CSMCPI), Progetto nazionale emorragia digestiva score (PNED), Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS), and albumin, international normalized ratio, mental status, systolic blood pressure, age ≥65 years score (AIMS65) were significantly higher for endoscopic intervention (p=0.002, p<0.001, p=0.001, p=0.002, p=0.004, respectively). RS, Cedarsiani, PNED, and GBS were significantly higher in hospitalized patients (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.021, p = 0.002, respectively). RS, PNED, and AIMS65 scores were significantly higher for recurrent hemorrhage (p = 0.019, p = 0.005, p = 0.008, respectively). RS, Baylor Bleeding Score (BBS), Cedarsinai, PNED, and AIMS65 were significantly higher for mortality (p = 0.01, p = 0.013, p = 0.026, p = 0.005, p = 0.003, respectively). SI was statistically significant only for the transfusion need of patients (p = 0.019).
Conclusion:
AIMS-65 seems to be more valuable and feasible than the others in the ED. Hemodynamic indexes should be used in conjunction with risk scores.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:28Esophageal 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...
01:29Endoscopic Procedures I: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
During an EGD, the endoscope can be used to:
01:28Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
01:26Endoscopic Procedures V: ERCP
Patient...
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
01:23Gastritis III: Clinical Manifestations and Management
Clinical manifestations of acute gastritis
The patient with acute gastritis may have a rapid onset of symptoms, such as epigastric pain or discomfort, dyspepsia, anorexia, hiccups, or nausea and vomiting, which can last from a few hours to a few days. Erosive or hemorrhagic gastritis may cause bleeding, which may manifest as blood in vomit or as...