PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 3, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología0 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Evaluation of A4C, CHAMPS, and CAGIB Scores for Risk Stratification in Hemodialysis Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding

View Full Paper
MUMete UcdalEEEvren Ekingen

Key Points

  • A4C and CHAMPS scores are effective for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding risk assessment, with CHAMPS showing an AUROC of 0.91.
  • CAGIB was more effective for variceal gastrointestinal bleeding, demonstrating an AUROC of 0.89.
  • Retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 57 hemodialysis patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding over four years.
  • Optimal risk stratification requires using distinct scores based on the etiology of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Abstract

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ucdal et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a75acdc6e9836116a211a9https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16030401
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1High Mortality of Cirrhotic Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease2016 · 17 citations
  2. 2Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Machine Learning Models Versus Conventional Clinical Risk Scores2025 · 5 citations
  3. 3Development and Validation of CAGIB Score for Evaluating the Prognosis of Cirrhosis with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Multicenter Study2019 · 33 citations
  4. 4Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with end stage renal disease: causes, characteristics and factors associated with need for endoscopic therapeutic intervention2017 · 32 citations
  5. 5Epidemiological features of primary glomerular disease in Turkey: a multicenter study by the Turkish Society of Nephrology Glomerular Diseases Working Group2020 · 29 citations