Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Early prognostic assessment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding requiring intensive care: comparison of SOFA and bleeding-specific risk scores.

Created on 04 Oct 2026

Authors

Ghita Rami, Chérifa Cheurfa, Dilhana Badurdeen, Gaël Piton, Frédéric Prat, Abdellah Hedjoudje

Published in

Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. Oct 03, 2026. Epub Oct 03, 2026.

Abstract

Bleeding-specific risk scores are widely used in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) but were primarily developed in non-critically ill populations. We compared the prognostic performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score with bleeding-specific scores in patients with UGIB requiring intensive care.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study using MIMIC-III, including adults presenting with UGIB and requiring direct ICU admission. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Discrimination of SOFA, Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS), AIMS65, pre- and post-endoscopic Rockall scores, serum lactate, and blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio was assessed using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves.
Among 979 patients, 73 (7.5%) died within 30 days. SOFA showed the highest discrimination (AUC 0.818), followed by lactate (0.774), GBS and AIMS65 (0.767 each), pre-endoscopic Rockall (0.649), post-endoscopic Rockall (0.632), and blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio (0.604). A SOFA threshold of 5.5 provided 67.1% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. Higher SOFA was associated with significantly lower 30-day survival (P < 0.0001).
In critically ill patients with UGIB, SOFA showed better discrimination for 30-day mortality than bleeding-specific scores, supporting the prognostic relevance of early organ dysfunction assessment.

PMID:
42829278
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 04 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 9
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement