Introduction: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding can be a life-threatening condition and requires careful evaluation from the very first episode in order to reduce the risk of rebleeding, haemorrhagic shock and death. The outcome of a patient with upper gastrointestinal bleeding depends on resuscitation measures taken during admission to the hospital and an adequate assessment of the patientÂ’s risk level. Aim: The aim of the study is to compare Glasgow Blatchford score and Rockall score and to identify the most accurate score used in predicting unfavorable outcomes and the need for intervention. Methods: This study involves 237 patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The accuracy of the scoring systems was assessed by plotting receiver-operating characteristic curves (ROC curves) and was calculated for GBS and RS with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: As for mortality prediction, RS was superior to GBS (AUC 0.806 vs. 0.750). The GBS had a higher accuracy in detecting patients who needed transfusion units and was superior to the RS (AUC 0.810 vs.0.675). In predicting the need for intervention, RS was superior to GBS (AUC 0.707 vs. 0.636. Conclusion: GBS and RS are developed to help clinicians to triage patients appropriately in order to assess endoscopic therapy within a suitable time frame, as well as identify low risk patients for possible outpatient management. High accuracy of the GBS in predicting a need for transfusion represents an important endpoint to assess. RS was superior to GBS in predicting a need for intervention as well as mortality. Currently, a combination of these scoring systems is the best way for proper assessment.
Key words: Glasgow Blatchford score, Rockall score, upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
|
