Novosti
Khirurgii
This journal is
indexed in Scopus









Year 2020 Vol. 28 No 2

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
GENERAL & SPECIAL SURGE

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18484/2305-0047.2020.2.141   |  

S.N. POTAKHIN, Y.G. SHAPKIN

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF METHODS FOR PREDICTING OF PEPTIC ULCERS REBLEEDING

Saratov State Medical University, Saratov,
The Russian Federation

Objective. To conduct a comparative analysis of methods for predicting of peptic ulcers rebleeding.
Methods. The research was carried out in 2017-2018 years. In the study, the retrospective analysis of the treatment results of 126 patients with the ulcerative gastrointestinal bleeding and the comparative analysis of nine methods for predicting bleeding recurrence for sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and predictability of a positive result were made. The analysis includes: the classification of J.A. Forrest (1974), the classification of G.P. Giderim (1992) in the authors modification, Baylor Bleeding score (1993), Rockall score (1996), the method of forecasting by I. I. Zatevakhin et al. (1997), one of the methods of forecasting by M.A. Evseev (2004), the method of M.M. Vinokurov and M.A. Kapitonova (2009), the System for the prediction of bleeding recurrence (Lebedev N.V. et al., 2009), as well as the authors forecasting methodology for trees classification.
Patients were treated in the surgical department of Saratov City Clinical Hospital 6 from 2001 to 2009. During this period of time, assistance with this pathology was the most complete and corresponded to all current standards. The analysis included 63 patients with recurrent bleeding and 63 patients without recurrent bleeding.
Results. The optimum ratio of sensitivity and specificity, better accuracy and positive predictive value was revealed for the G.P. Giderim method in our own modification (82.5%; 73%; 78% and 75.4%, respectively) and, somewhat worse, for the authors forecast method for trees classification (71.2%; 57.1%; 63.9% and 60.9%, respectively).
Conclusions. Classification of J.A. Forrest, traditionally used to assess the risk of recurrence of bleeding, with a high sensitivity (90.5%) has the lowest specificity (20.6%), which significantly reduces the accuracy of the forecast (55.6%). The most effective is the modified classification of G.P. Giderim, which takes into account the characteristic of the ulcerous bottom, the pulse rate, systolic blood pressure and the presence of collapse. Increasing the number of features in other methods does not improve the accuracy of the forecast.

Keywords: bleeding peptic ulcers, predicting of rebleeding, risk assessment, comparative analysis of methods, signs of recurrence high risk
p. 141-149 of the original issue
References
  1. Sokolova PY, Klimov AE, Lebedev NV, Persov MY. Comparative evaluation of relapse prediction systems in gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Zemskii Vrach [Elektronnyi resurs]. 2012 [data obrashcheniia: 2019 Ianv 03];15(4):65-66. Rezhim dostupa: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sravnitelnaya-otsenka-sistem-prognoza (In Russ.)
  2. Forrest JA, Finlayson ND, Shearman DJ. Endoscopy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Lancet. 1974 Aug 17;2(7877):394-97. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91770-x
  3. Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC. Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut. 1996 Mar;38(3):316-21. doi: 10.1136/gut.38.3.316
  4. Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 2000 Oct 14;356(9238):1318-21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02816-6
  5. Tammaro L, Di Paolo MC, Zullo A, Hassan C, Morini S, Caliendo S, Pallotta L. Endoscopic findings in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding clinically classified into three risk groups prior to endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Aug 28;14(32):5046-50. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.5046
  6. Stanley AJ, Laine L, Dalton HR, Ngu JH, Schultz M, Abazi R, Zakko L, Thornton S, Wilkinson K, Khor CJ, Murray IA, Laursen SB. Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2017;356:i6432. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6432
  7. Lebedev NV, Klimov AE, Barkhudarov AA. Gastroduodenal ulcerative bleeding. Khirurgiia. Zhurn im NI Pirogova [Elektronnyi resurs]. 2014 [data obrashcheniia: 2019 Ianv 03];(8):23-27. Rezhim dostupa: https://www.mediasphera.ru/issues/khirurgiya-zhurnal-im-n-i-pirogova/2014/8/030023-1207201484 (In Russ.)
  8. Shapkin IuG, Potakhin SN, Belikov AV, Uriadov SE, Ivanov RIu. Diagnostika predretsidivnogo sindroma pri krovotochashchei iazve zheludka i dvenadtsatiperstnoi kishki. Vestn Khirurgii im II Grekova. 2004;163(1):43-46. (In Russ.)
  9. Giderim GP, Chikala ET, Gutsu VM, Kontsu GI. Taktika pri zheludochno-kishechnykh krovotecheniiakh v usloviiakh sanitarnoi aviatsii. Khirurgiia Zhurn im NI Pirogova. 1992;68(9-10):24-29. (In Russ.)
  10. Saeed ZA, Ramirez FC, Hepps KS, Cole RA, Graham DY. Prospective validation of the Baylor bleeding score for predicting the likelihood of rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis of peptic ulcers. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995 Jun;41(6):561-65. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(95)70191-5
  11. Zatevakhin II, Shchegolev AA, Titkov BE. Sovremennye podkhody k lecheniiu iazvennykh gastroduodenalnykh krovotechenii. Annaly Khirurgii. 1997;(1):40-46 (In Russ.)\
  12. Gostishchev VK, Evseev MA. Patogenez retsidiva ostrykh gastroduodenalnykh iazvennykh krovotechenii. Khirurgiia Zhurn im NI Pirogova. 2004;(5):46-51. (In Russ.)
  13. Vinokurov MM, Kapitonova MA. Treatment tactics of the patients with gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Khirurgiia Zhurn im NI Pirogova. 2008;(2):33-36. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9947541 (In Russ.)
  14. Lebedev NV, Klimov AE, Barkhudarova TV. Prognosis for relapse of gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. Khirurgiia Zhurn im NI Pirogova. 2009;(2):32-34. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=13122943 (In Russ.)
  15. Vasilev AYu, Malyi AYu, Serov NS. Analiz dannykh luchevykh metodov issledovaniia na osnove printsipov dokazatelnoi meditsiny: ucheb posobie [Elektronnyi resurs] [data obrashcheniia: 2019 Ianv 03]. Moscow, RF: GEOTAR-Media; 2008. 32 p. Rezhim dostupa: http://vmede.org/sait/?page=3&id=Onkologiya_analiz_vasilev_2008&menu=Onkologiya_analiz_vasilev_2008 (In Russ.)
Address for correspondence:
410012, Russian Federation,
Saratov, Bolshaya Kazachya Str., 112
Saratov State Medical University,
General Surgery Department.
Tel.: +7 927 220 74 51,
e-mail: potakhin_sn@rambler.ru,
Sergey N. Potakhin
Information about the authors:
Potakhin Sergey N., PhD, Associate Professor, General Surgery Department, Saratov State Medical University, Saratov, Russian Federation.
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4159-3047
Shapkin Yuri G., MD, Professor, Head of the General Surgery Department, Saratov State Medical University, Saratov, Russian Federation.
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0186-1892
Contacts | ©Vitebsk State Medical University, 2007