Comparative Evaluation of A4C, CHAMPS, and CAGIB Scores for Risk Stratification in Hemodialysis Patients with Acute

Mete Ucdal1, Evren Ekingen2

  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Etimesgut Şehit Sait Ertürk State Hospital, Ankara 06790, Turkey.

PubMed

Insights

Risk stratification for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in hemodialysis (HD) patients requires etiology-specific scores. CHAMPS is best for non-variceal GIB, while CAGIB excels for variceal bleeding, improving mortality prediction.

Area of Science:

  • Nephrology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Clinical Epidemiology

Background:

  • Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) poses a significant mortality risk for patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD).
  • Existing risk stratification scores like A4C and CHAMPS are novel, while CAGIB was designed for cirrhosis-associated GIB.
  • Comparing these scores in HD patients with acute GIB, stratified by bleeding source, is crucial for accurate prognostication.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the discriminative performance of A4C, CHAMPS, and CAGIB scores in hemodialysis patients with acute GIB.
  • To evaluate the efficacy of these scores in predicting 30-day mortality, ICU admission, rebleeding, and transfusion needs.
  • To determine the optimal scoring system for risk stratification based on the etiology of GIB (variceal vs. non-variceal).

Main Methods:

  • A retrospective cohort study included 57 hemodialysis patients with acute GIB from January 2020 to December 2024.
  • Patients were stratified into non-variceal (n=42) and variceal (n=15) GIB groups.
  • Performance of A4C, CHAMPS, CAGIB, ABC, AIMS65, and Glasgow-Blatchford scores was assessed using AUROC analysis for 30-day mortality and other outcomes.

Main Results:

  • Overall 30-day mortality was 17.5%, higher in variceal (26.7%) than non-variceal GIB (14.3%).
  • For non-variceal GIB, CHAMPS showed superior mortality discrimination (AUROC 0.91) over CAGIB (AUROC 0.68).
  • For variceal GIB, CAGIB demonstrated better performance (AUROC 0.89) compared to CHAMPS (AUROC 0.72). A4C showed consistent transfusion prediction (AUROC 0.75-0.78).

Conclusions:

  • Optimal risk stratification for GIB in hemodialysis patients necessitates etiology-specific scoring tools.
  • CHAMPS is recommended for non-variceal GIB, while CAGIB is preferred for variceal bleeding.
  • Prospective validation in larger, multicenter cohorts is warranted to confirm these findings.

Related Concept Videos

Hemodialysis I: Introduction01:25

Hemodialysis I: Introduction

Hemodialysis (HD) is a medical treatment that artificially removes waste products, excess fluids, and toxins from the blood when the kidneys are no longer able to perform these functions effectively. In this process, blood is filtered through a semipermeable membrane, allowing for the selective removal of waste while preserving necessary components like blood cells and proteins. Hemodialysis is typically performed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or severe kidney...
1.9K
Hemodialysis II: Procedure and Complications01:24

Hemodialysis II: Procedure and Complications

DialyzersA hemodialysis (HD) dialyzer is a plastic cartridge containing thousands of parallel hollow fibers, which serve as semipermeable membranes. These fibers are typically made from cellulose-based or other synthetic materials. During HD, blood is pumped into the top of the cartridge and distributed among these fibers. Simultaneously, dialysis fluid, known as dialysate, is introduced into the bottom of the cartridge, bathing the outside of the fibers. Across the semipermeable membrane,...
970
Bleeding in Fresh Concrete01:22

Bleeding in Fresh Concrete

Bleeding in fresh concrete occurs when water from the mix rises to the surface. This happens because the mix's solid components fail to retain all the water as they settle, leading to separation where water collects at the top. The severity of bleeding can be measured by assessing the total settlement or by noting the decrease in height per unit height of concrete.
Bleeding can cause several issues in the concrete structure. Sometimes, the rising water gets trapped beneath large aggregate...
619
Introduction to z Scores01:06

Introduction to z Scores

A z score (or standardized value) is measured in units of the standard deviation. It tells you how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a zero z score. It is important to note that the mean of the z scores is zero, and the standard deviation is one.
z scores...
11.3K
Introduction to z Scores01:05

Introduction to z Scores

A z score (or standardized value) is measured in units of the standard deviation. It indicates how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a zero z score. It is important to note that the mean of the z scores is zero, and the standard deviation is one.
z scores...
1.4K
z Scores and Area Under the Curve01:17

z Scores and Area Under the Curve

z scores are the standardized values obtained after converting a normal distribution into a standard normal distribution. A z score is measured in units of the standard deviation. The z score tells you how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a z score of...
19.7K