Background/Objectives: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in hemodialysis (HD) patients carries substantial mortality risk. The A4C and CHAMPS scores are novel risk stratification tools, while CAGIB was developed for cirrhosis-associated GIB. We compared the discriminative performance of these scores in HD patients with acute GIB, stratified by variceal and non-variceal etiology. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 57 HD patients with acute GIB (January 2020-December 2024) following STROBE and TRIPOD guidelines. Patients were stratified as non-variceal (n = 42) or variceal (n = 15). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes included ICU admission, rebleeding, and transfusion requirements. A4C, CHAMPS, CAGIB, ABC, AIMS65, and Glasgow-Blatchford scores were compared using AUROC analysis. Results: Mean age was 45.8 ± 13.2 years. Non-variceal GIB (73.7%) was predominantly caused by angiodysplasia (28.6%) and peptic ulcer disease (23.8%); variceal GIB (26.3%) was mainly from esophageal varices (80.0%). Overall 30-day mortality was 17.5%, significantly higher in variceal (26.7%) versus non-variceal GIB (14.3%, p = 0.048). For non-variceal GIB, CHAMPS demonstrated excellent mortality discrimination (AUROC 0.91), significantly outperforming CAGIB (AUROC 0.68, p = 0.02). Conversely, for variceal GIB, CAGIB showed superior performance (AUROC 0.89) compared to CHAMPS (AUROC 0.72, p = 0.04). A4C performed consistently for transfusion prediction across both groups (AUROC 0.75-0.78). Conclusions: Optimal risk stratification in HD patients with GIB requires etiology-specific scoring: CHAMPS for non-variceal and CAGIB for variceal bleeding. This complementary performance reflects distinct pathophysiological mechanisms underlying mortality. Prospective validation in larger multicenter cohorts is warranted.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mete Ucdal
Evren Ekingen
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Diagnostics
Etimesgut Asker Hastanesi
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ucdal et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69a75acdc6e9836116a211a9 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16030401