Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 63, Issue 12, pp 3253–3261 | Cite as

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Non-ulcer and Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Multicenter Study of Risk Prediction Using a Scoring System

  • Hyun Woo Park
  • Seong Woo JeonEmail author
Original Article


Background and Aims

Compared with ulcer bleeding (UB) in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), non-ulcer bleeding (NUB) is often considered to have a low risk of poor outcomes and is treated less intensively without any risk stratification. We conducted this study to assess the predictability of scoring systems for NUB and compare the outcomes of NUB and UB.


A total of 1831 UGIB patients were registered in the database during the period from February 2011 to December 2013. Among them, 1424 patients with NVUGIB were divided into two groups: Group UB (1101 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding) and Group NUB (323 patients with non-peptic ulcer-related bleeding).


The most common cause of bleeding in Group NUB was Mallory–Weiss tears (51.1%), followed by Dieulafoy lesions (18.9%). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that the pre-Rockall score [area under the ROC (AUROC) = 0.798; 95% CI 0.707–0.890] and full Rockall score (AUROC = 0.794; 95% CI 0.693–0.895) were relatively good at predicting overall mortality in NUB. Glasgow–Blatchford score (AUROC = 0.783; 95% CI 0.730–0.836) was the most closely correlated with the need for clinical intervention in NUB. Those who had Glasgow–Blatchford score of 0 did not require any interventions, including blood transfusions. There were no statistical differences in overall mortality (p = 0.387), bleeding-related mortality (p = 0.447), or the incidence of re-bleeding (p = 0.117) between the two groups.


Scoring systems are useful to predict mortality and the need for clinical intervention in patients with NUB.


Gastrointestinal hemorrhages Peptic ulcer hemorrhages Etiology Mortality 



We appreciate Daegu-Gyeongbuk Gastrointestinal Study Group (DGSG) members for data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

There are no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

10620_2018_5255_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. 1.
    Rotondano G, Cipolletta L, Koch M, et al. Predictors of favourable outcome in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: implications for early discharge? Dig Liver Dis. 2014;46:231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barkun AN, Martel M, Toubouti Y, Rahme E, Bardou M. Endoscopic hemostasis in peptic ulcer bleeding for patients with high-risk lesions: a series of meta-analyses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:786–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Church NI, Dallal HJ, Masson J, et al. Validity of the Rockall scoring system after endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer: a prospective cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:606–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Church NI, Palmer KR. Relevance of the Rockall score in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for peptic ulcer haemorrhage. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;13:1149–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC. Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut. 1996;38:316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 2000;356:1318–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vreeburg EM, Terwee CB, Snel P, et al. Validation of the Rockall risk scoring system in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gut. 1999;44:331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marmo R, Del Piano M, Rotondano G, et al. Mortality from nonulcer bleeding is similar to that of ulcer bleeding in high-risk patients with nonvariceal hemorrhage: a prospective database study in Italy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:263–272, 72 e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yin J, Tian L. Joint confidence region estimation for area under ROC curve and Youden index. Stat Med. 2014;33:985–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenspoon J, Barkun A, Bardou M, et al. Management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:234–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barkun AN, Bardou M, Kuipers EJ, et al. International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyapati R, Ong SY, Ye B, et al. One fifth of hospitalizations for peptic ulcer-related bleeding are potentially preventable. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:10504–10511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laine L, Jensen DM. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2012;107:345–360; quiz 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laursen SB, Hansen JM, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB. The Glasgow Blatchford score is the most accurate assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1130–1135 e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bryant RV, Kuo P, Williamson K, et al. Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:576–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dicu D, Pop F, Ionescu D, Dicu T. Comparison of risk scoring systems in predicting clinical outcome at upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients in an emergency unit. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Enns RA, Gagnon YM, Barkun AN, Armstrong D, Gregor JC, Fedorak RN. Validation of the Rockall scoring system for outcomes from non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a Canadian setting. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:7779–7785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim LG, Ho KY, Chan YH, et al. Urgent endoscopy is associated with lower mortality in high-risk but not low-risk nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy. 2011;43:300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gralnek IM, Dulai GS. Incremental value of upper endoscopy for triage of patients with acute non-variceal upper-GI hemorrhage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masaoka T, Suzuki H, Hori S, Aikawa N, Hibi T. Blatchford scoring system is a useful scoring system for detecting patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding who do not need endoscopic intervention. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22:1404–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dulai GS, Gralnek IM, Oei TT, et al. Utilization of health care resources for low-risk patients with acute, nonvariceal upper GI hemorrhage: an historical cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC. Selection of patients for early discharge or outpatient care after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. National Audit of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage. Lancet. 1996;347:1138–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stanley AJ, Ashley D, Dalton HR, et al. Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation. Lancet. 2009;373:42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen IC, Hung MS, Chiu TF, Chen JC, Hsiao CT. Risk scoring systems to predict need for clinical intervention for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25:774–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stanley AJ. Update on risk scoring systems for patients with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:2739–2744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hearnshaw SA, Logan RF, Lowe D, Travis SP, Murphy MF, Palmer KR. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut. 2011;60:1327–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee SY. Current progress toward eradicating Helicobacter pylori in East Asian countries: differences in the 2013 revised guidelines between China, Japan, and South Korea. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:1493–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kyungpook National University HospitalDaeguSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, School of MedicineKyungpook National UniversityDaeguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations