Utility of the Rockall Score in Identifying Very Low-Risk Patients with Non‑variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4, 408 - 412, 31.12.2025

Çiğdem Erhan , Bülent Kantarçeken

https://doi.org/10.36516/jocass.1790341

Öz

Objective: The Rockall score (RS) together with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are commonly used to predict adverse clinical outcomes (ACO) in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NV-UGIB). However, their ability to identify patients who remain free of ACOs is uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of RS and GBS for identifying patients at low risk of ACOs.
Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, 134 individuals diagnosed with NV-UGIB were enrolled. The GBS was assessed prior to endoscopy, while the RS was determined following the procedure. Participants were monitored for adverse clinical outcomes (mortality, rebleeding, transfusion requirement, endoscopic therapy, surgical intervention, or ICU admission). Based on the presence or absence of ACOs, patients were categorized accordingly, and their clinical, laboratory, and scoring characteristics were compared.
Results: Of the study cohort, fifteen patients (11%) did not experience any adverse clinical outcome (ACO). In comparison with those who developed ACOs, patients without ACO demonstrated significantly lower white blood cell counts and blood urea nitrogen levels, along with higher hemoglobin and hematocrit values (all p < 0.05). Mean Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) were also markedly reduced in the non-ACO group (p < 0.05). Multivariate regression identified RS and hematocrit as independent predictors of the absence of ACO. A one-point reduction in RS was associated with a 37.5% greater probability of remaining free from ACO. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis yielded optimal cutoff points of RS ≤ 4 and GBS ≤ 7, providing acceptable sensitivity and specificity.
Conclusion: Our study showed that initial RS and GBS evaluation in patients with NV-UGIB may be useful in identifying low-risk cases as well as high-risk cases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gastrointestinal bleeding; , Risk stratification; , Rockall score; , Glasgow-Blatchford score; , Endoscopy; , Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University (approval number: 2010/1-21, date: February 26, 2010).

Destekleyen Kurum

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Teşekkür

The authors declare that there is no one to acknowledge.

Non-varisiyel Üst Gastrointestinal Kanamalı Hastalarda Çok Düşük Riskin Belirlenmesinde Rockall Skorunun Klinik Değeri

Öz

Giriş: Rockall skoru (RS) ve Glasgow-Blatchford skoru (GBS), non-varisiyel üst gastrointestinal kanamada (NV-UGİK) advers klinik sonuçları (AKS) öngörmek amacıyla yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Ancak, bu skorların advers klinik sonuç gelişmeyen hastaları belirlemedeki etkinliği belirsizdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, RS ve GBS’nin AKS açısından düşük riskli hastaları tanımlamadaki yararlılığını değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu kesitsel analizde, NV-UGİK tanısı konulan 134 birey çalışmaya dahil edildi. Endoskopi öncesinde GBS, endoskopi sonrasında ise RS değerlendirildi. Katılımcılar; mortalite, rebleeding, transfüzyon gereksinimi, endoskopik tedavi, cerrahi girişim veya yoğun bakım ünitesine yatış gibi advers klinik sonuçlar açısından takip edildi. Hastalar, AKS varlığına veya yokluğuna göre gruplandırılarak klinik, laboratuvar ve skorlama özellikleri karşılaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Çalışma grubunda 15 hasta (%11) advers klinik sonuç (AKS) geliştirmedi. AKS gelişenlerle karşılaştırıldığında, AKS gelişmeyen hastalarda beyaz küre sayısı ve kan üre azotu düzeyleri anlamlı olarak daha düşük; hemoglobin ve hematokrit değerleri ise daha yüksek bulundu (tüm p < 0,05). Ortalama Rockall skoru (RS) ve Glasgow-Blatchford skoru (GBS) da AKS gelişmeyen grupta belirgin şekilde daha düşüktü (p < 0,05). Çok değişkenli regresyon analizinde, RS ve hematokrit düzeyi AKS olmamasının bağımsız belirteçleri olarak saptandı. RS’de her 1 puanlık azalmanın, AKS gelişmeme olasılığını %37,5 artırdığı gösterildi. ROC analizi, RS ≤ 4 ve GBS ≤ 7 kesim noktalarının duyarlılık ve özgüllük açısından kabul edilebilir performans sağladığını ortaya koydu.
Sonuç: Çalışmamız, NV-UGİK’li hastalarda başlangıç RS ve GBS değerlendirmesinin yalnızca yüksek riskli olguları değil, düşük riskli hastaları da belirlemede yararlı olabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gastrointestinal kanama , Risk sınıflaması , Rockall skoru; , Glasgow-Blatchford skoru; , Endoskopi; , Üst gastrointestinal hemoraji

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma Helsinki Bildirgesi ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Bu çalışma, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (onay numarası: 2010/1-21, tarih: 26 Şubat 2010).

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu araştırma, yazarlık ve/veya makalenin yayımlanması için herhangi bir finansal destek alınmamıştır.

Teşekkür

Yazarların teşekkür edeceği herhangi bir kişi bulunmamaktadır.

Kaynakça

• 1.Kozai L, Tan A, Nebrejas K, Nishimura Y (2025) Comparative diagnostic utility of Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford scores in non-variceal upper gas¬trointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastro¬enterol Hepatol. 37(2):161-166. [Crossref]
• 2.Laine L, Yang H, Chang SC, Datto C (2012) Trends for incidence of hospitalization and death due to GI complications in the United States from 2001 to 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 107(8):1190-1195. [Crossref]
• 3.Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC (1996) Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut. 38(3):316-21. [Crossref]
• 4.Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M (2000) A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 356(9238):1318-1321. [Crossref]
• 5.Maia S, Falcão D, Silva J, Pedroto I (2021) The Clinical Impact of Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scores in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding. GE Port J Gastroenterol. 28(4):243-252. [Crossref]
• 6.Ebrahimi Bakhtavar H, Morteza Bagi HR, Rahmani F, Shahsavari Nia K, Ettehadi A (2017) Clinical Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcome of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; a Narrative Review. Emerg (Tehran). 5(1):e36.
• 7.Oakland K (2019) Risk stratification in upper and upper and lower GI bleeding: Which scores should we use? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 42-43:101613. [Crossref]
• 8.Bryant RV, Kuo P, Williamson K, et al. (2013) Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 78(4):576-583. [Crossref]
• 9.Kim MS, Choi J, Shin WC (2019) AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. BMC Gastroenterol. 19(1):136. [Crossref]
• 10.Stanley AJ, Laine L, Dalton HR, et al (2017) International Gastrointestinal Bleeding Consortium. Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 356:i6432. [Crossref]
• 11.Tham J, Stanley A (2019) Clinical utility of pre-endoscopy risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 13(12):1161-1167.
• 12.Kamboj AK, Hoversten P, Leggett CL (2019) Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Etiologies and Management. Mayo Clin Proc. 94(4):697-703. [Crossref]
• 13.Patel V, Nicastro J (2020) Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 33(1):42-44. [Crossref] 14.Cañamares-Orbís P, Chan FKL (2019) Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 42-43:101608. [Crossref]
• 15.Uysal Y, Babus SB, Kose A, et al. (2019) The prognostic significance of the risk scores at upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Niger J Clin Pract. 22(8):1099-1108. [Crossref]
• 16.Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al (2016) Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems. Gastrointest Endosc. 83(6):1151-60. [Crossref]
• 17.Chandnani S, Rathi P, Sonthalia N, et al (2019) Comparison of risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in western India: A prospective analysis. Indian J Gastroenterol. 38(2):117-127. [Crossref]
• 18.Gralnek IM, Stanley AJ, Morris AJ, et al (2021) Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021. Endoscopy. 53(3):300-332. [Crossref]
• 19.Mokhtare M, Bozorgi V, Agah S, et al. (2016) Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford score and full Rockall score systems to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 9:337-343. [Crossref]
• 20.Cai JX, Saltzman JR (2018) Initial Assessment, Risk Stratification, and Early Management of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 28(3):261-275. [Crossref]