Detecting dysglycaemia in compensated liver cirrhosis: Comparison of oral glucose tolerance test and glycated haemoglobin, with continuous glucose monitoring.

AIMS: Liver cirrhosis increases the risk of developing dysglycaemia (pre-diabetes and diabetes), thus people with cirrhosis should undergo regular screening for dysglycaemia. The utility of screening using the laboratory glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c ) test has been questioned in this setting. This study examines the relationship between different potential screening modalities: 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and HbA1c , using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as a comparator. METHODS: Participants ≥18 years with no known diabetes, were recruited from a gastroenterology cirrhosis surveillance register. Study measurements included a 75 g OGTT, laboratory HbA1c and two weeks of 'blinded' CGM (Freestyle Libre Pro). The possibility of intravascular haemolysis affecting HbA1c interpretation was also assessed. RESULTS: All 20 participants had compensated cirrhosis. OGTT tended to diagnose more dysglycaemia (N = 7) than did HbA1c (N = 4). Bland-Altman analysis showed laboratory and CGM-estimated HbA1c were broadly comparable, with a difference of 4mmol/mol (95% CI -3 to 12), or 0.4% (95% CI -0.3 to 1.1). Laboratory HbA1c tended to be higher than the CGM-estimated HbA1c , perhaps reflecting positive lifestyle changes in participants during their two weeks of wearing 'blinded' CGM (Hawthorne effect). In the population studied, there was no evidence that haemolysis affected interpretation of HbA1c results. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of compensated cirrhosis, the OGTT and HbA1c remain standard screening test for diabetes, but multiple studies show the OGTT diagnoses more people with dysglycaemia than does the HbA1c . Blinded CGM in an ambulatory, real world setting provides additional insights into glycaemic excursions but cannot be used to diagnose dysglycaemia.

ABC score: a new risk score that accurately predicts mortality in acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: an international multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Existing scores are not accurate at predicting mortality in upper (UGIB) and lower (LGIB) gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new pre-endoscopy score for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB. DESIGN AND SETTING: International cohort study. Patients presenting to hospital with UGIB at six international centres were used to develop a risk score for predicting mortality using regression analyses. The score's performance in UGIB and LGIB was externally validated and compared with existing scores using four international datasets. We calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, specificities and outcome among patients classified as low risk and high risk. PARTICIPANTS AND RESULTS: We included 3012 UGIB patients in the development cohort, and 4019 UGIB and 2336 LGIB patients in the validation cohorts. Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities (ABC) score was closer associated with mortality in UGIB and LGIB (AUROCs: 0.81-84) than existing scores (AUROCs: 0.65-0.75; p≤0.02). In UGIB, patients with low ABC score (≤3), medium ABC score (4-7) and high ABC score (≥8) had 30-day mortality rates of 1.0%, 7.0% and 25%, respectively. Patients classified low risk using ABC score had lower mortality than those classified low risk with AIMS65 (threshold ≤1) (1.0 vs 4.5%; p<0.001). In LGIB, patients with low, medium and high ABC scores had in-hospital mortality rates of 0.6%, 6.3% and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous scores, ABC score has good performance for predicting mortality in both UGIB and LGIB, allowing early identification and targeted management of patients at high or low risk of death.

Validation of a Machine Learning Model That Outperforms Clinical Risk Scoring Systems for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Scoring systems are suboptimal for determining risk in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB); these might be improved by a machine learning model. We used machine learning to develop a model to calculate the risk of hospital-based intervention or death in patients with UGIB and compared its performance with other scoring systems. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from consecutive unselected patients with UGIB from medical centers in 4 countries (the United States, Scotland, England, and Denmark; n = 1958) from March 2014 through March 2015. We used the data to derive and internally validate a gradient-boosting machine learning model to identify patients who met a composite endpoint of hospital-based intervention (transfusion or hemostatic intervention) or death within 30 days. We compared the performance of the machine learning prediction model with validated pre-endoscopic clinical risk scoring systems (the Glasgow-Blatchford score [GBS], admission Rockall score, and AIMS65). We externally validated the machine learning model using data from 2 Asia-Pacific sites (Singapore and New Zealand; n = 399). Performance was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: The machine learning model identified patients who met the composite endpoint with an AUC of 0.91 in the internal validation set; the clinical scoring systems identified patients who met the composite endpoint with AUC values of 0.88 for the GBS (P = .001), 0.73 for Rockall score (P < .001), and 0.78 for AIMS65 score (P < .001). In the external validation cohort, the machine learning model identified patients who met the composite endpoint with an AUC of 0.90, the GBS with an AUC of 0.87 (P = .004), the Rockall score with an AUC of 0.66 (P < .001), and the AIMS65 with an AUC of 0.64 (P < .001). At cutoff scores at which the machine learning model and GBS identified patients who met the composite endpoint with 100% sensitivity, the specificity values were 26% with the machine learning model versus 12% with GBS (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a machine learning model that identifies patients with UGIB who met a composite endpoint of hospital-based intervention or death within 30 days with a greater AUC and higher levels of specificity, at 100% sensitivity, than validated clinical risk scoring systems. This model could increase identification of low-risk patients who can be safely discharged from the emergency department for outpatient management.

International multicenter study comparing demographics, therapy and outcomes in bleeding from Mallory Weiss tears and peptic ulcers.

Background and study aims Mallory Weiss tears (MWTs) are relatively uncommon causes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and patients are generally considered at low risk of poor outcome, although data are limited. There is uncertainty about use of endoscopic therapy. We aimed to describe and compare an international cohort of patients presenting with UGIB secondary to MWT and peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Patients and methods From an international dataset of patients undergoing endoscopy for acute UGIB at seven hospitals, we assessed patients with MWT bleeding, including the endoscopic stigmata and endoscopic therapy applied. We compared baseline parameters, rebleeding rate, and 30-day mortality between patients with MWT and PUB. Results A total of 3648 patients presented with UGIB, 125 of whom (3.4 %) had bleeding from a MWT. Those patients were younger (61 vs 69 years, P  < 0.0001) and more likely to be men (66 % vs 53 %, P  = 0.006) compared to the patients PUB. The most common endoscopic stigmata seen in MWTs were oozing blood (26 %) or clean base (26 %). Of the patients with MWT, 53 (42 %) received endoscopic therapy. Forty-eight of them (90 %) had epinephrine injections and 25 (48 %) had through-the-scope clips. The rebleeding rate was lower in MWT patients compared with PUB patients (4.9 % vs 12 %, P  = 0.016), but mortality was similar (5.7 vs 7.0 %, P  = 0.71). Conclusions Although patients presenting with MWT were younger, with a lower rebleeding rate, their mortality was similar to that of patients with PUB. Endoscopic therapy was applied to 42 % MWT patients, with epinephrine injection as the most common modality.