This media is currently not available.
Early Predictive Performance of Pre-Endoscopic Risk Scores for Identifying Patients Requiring Endoscopic Therapy in Suspected Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Poster Abstract

Aims

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a frequent emergency requiring early risk stratification to identify patients needing urgent endoscopy and hospitalization. This study evaluated the predictive performance of the AS, modified Glasgow-Blatchford (GBm), AIMS65, and H3B2 scores in suspected NVUGIB.

Methods

A retrospective observational study included adults undergoing upper endoscopy for suspected NVUGIB between May and December 2024 at Hospital General de México. Clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data were collected. Pre-endoscopic scores (AS, AIMS65, GBm, H3B2) were calculated. Diagnostic accuracy for predicting endoscopic treatment and hospitalization was assessed using ROC curves and AUC analysis.

Results

A total of 122 patients were analyzed (63.1% male; mean age 57.7±16.3 years). Melena (54.1%), coffee-ground emesis (25.4%), and hematemesis (16.4%) were the main presenting symptoms. Endoscopic therapy was required in 16.4% of cases, mostly with epinephrine or hemoclips. Gastropathy (40.2%) and peptic ulcer disease (35.3%) were the predominant findings. Hospitalization was required in 38.5% of patients.

For predicting endoscopic therapy, the AS score had the highest AUC (0.636; p=0.055), followed by H3B2 (0.629) and AIMS65 (0.615). For hospitalization prediction, GBm (AUC 0.745; p<0.001) and H3B2 (AUC 0.738; p<0.001) performed best, while AS also showed significant discrimination (AUC 0.664; p=0.002). Optimal cutoffs were AS >2, AIMS65 >1, H3B2 >2, and GBm >6.

Outcomes Scores AUC (95% CI) P value Cutoff point Sensitivity Specificity
Need for endoscopic treatment AS 0.636 (0.502–0.770) 0.055 >2 0.700 0.578
  AIMS65 0.615 (0.462–0.768) 0.104 >1 0.700 0.657
  H3B2 0.629 (0.509–0.750) 0.068 >2 0.850 0.588
  GBm 0.600 (0.483–0.716) 0.159 >7 0.850 0.608
Need for hospitalization AS 0.664 (0.564–0.764) 0.002 >2 0.723 0.520
  AIMS65 0.595 (0.492–0.697) 0.079 >1 0.766 0.600
  H3B2 0.738 (0.649–0.827) <0.001 >2 0.830 0.507
  GBm 0.745 (0.655–0.836) <0.001 >6 0.894 0.613

Conclusions

The AS score, based on clinical variables available at first contact, showed comparable performance to laboratory-dependent scores—particularly for predicting hospitalization. Its simplicity supports its potential use as a practical triage tool in emergency settings. Further validation could consolidate its role in early NVUGIB management.