Gastroenterology Insights, Vol. 14, Pages 144-155: Value of Some Scoring Systems for the Prognosis of Rebleeding and In-Hospital Mortality in Liver Cirrhosis with Acute Variceal Bleeding

Gastroenterology Insights, Vol. 14, Pages 144-155: Value of Some Scoring Systems for the Prognosis of Rebleeding and In-Hospital Mortality in Liver Cirrhosis with Acute Variceal Bleeding

Gastroenterology Insights doi: 10.3390/gastroent14020011

Authors: Duong Quang Huy Nguyen Van Chung Dinh Tien Dong

Background: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage, caused by acute esophageal variceal bleeding, is a common complication and a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, predicting the risk in order to employ an active management to prevent rebleeding and death is crucial. Currently, there are many prognostic scoring systems that have been proposed, but research is needed to find a valid score which can be applied in clinical practice in each country and population. Aims: To compare the value of ALBI (Albumin-Bilirubin), PALBI (Platelet Albumin-Bilirubin), AIMS65, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), and Child–Pugh scores (CPS) approaches in predicting early rebleeding and in-hospital mortality of acute variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Subjects and methods: We performed a cross-sectional descriptive study on cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding who were being treated at the Department of Gastroenterology, Intensive care unit—Military Hospital 103 and the Institute for Treatment of Digestive Diseases—108 Military Central Hospital from September 2020 to May 2022. We calculated ALBI, PALBI, AIMS65, MELD, Child–Pugh values and compared them with the rates of early rebleeding and in-hospital mortality. Then, determined and compared the prognostic value through an analysis of the area under the curve (AUC). Results: 222 patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding were eligible for inclusion in the study. The rates of rebleeding and in-hospital mortality were 9.0% and 6.8%, respectively. Regarding the prognosis of early rebleeding, the ALBI and PALBI scores have good prognostic value (AUROC 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63–0.85 and AUROC 0.7; 95% CI: 0.59–0.81; p = 0.004, respectively), while the Child–Pugh, MELD, AIMS65 scores have little prognostic value, with AUROC < 0.70. Regarding prognosis of in-hospital mortality: the ALBI, PALBI, MELD and AIMS65 all have good value in predicting in-hospital mortality, with AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68–0.93, respectively; p < 0.001); 0.8 (95% CI: 0.69–0.91; p <0.001); 0.83 (95% CI: 0.72–0.93; p < 0.001); and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76–0.87, p < 0.001), respectively. While Child–Pugh score only has medium prognostic value, with AUROC 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66–0.92; p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between these prognostic scoring systems. Conclusion: the ALBI, PALBI, MELD and AIMS65 scores all had similar good value in predicting in-hospital mortality, but with early rebleeding prognosis, only ALBI and PALBI had good value. CPS does not show prognostic value like other scores, both in predicting early rebleeding and in-hospital mortality.