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

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: 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. <b>Methods</b>: 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 (<i>n</i> = 42) or variceal (<i>n</i> = 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. <b>Results</b>: 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%, <i>p</i> = 0.048). For non-variceal GIB, CHAMPS demonstrated excellent mortality discrimination (AUROC 0.91), significantly outperforming CAGIB (AUROC 0.68, <i>p</i> = 0.02). Conversely, for variceal GIB, CAGIB showed superior performance (AUROC 0.89) compared to CHAMPS (AUROC 0.72, <i>p</i> = 0.04). A4C performed consistently for transfusion prediction across both groups (AUROC 0.75-0.78). <b>Conclusions</b>: 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-01-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16030401
Primary Topic
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Mete Ucdal, Evren Ekingen
Diagnostics
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
article

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

Mete Ucdal, Evren Ekingen
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: 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. <b>Methods</b>: 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 (<i>n</i> = 42) or variceal (<i>n</i> = 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. <b>Results</b>: 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%, <i>p</i> = 0.048). For non-variceal GIB, CHAMPS demonstrated excellent mortality discrimination (AUROC 0.91), significantly outperforming CAGIB (AUROC 0.68, <i>p</i> = 0.02). Conversely, for variceal GIB, CAGIB showed superior performance (AUROC 0.89) compared to CHAMPS (AUROC 0.72, <i>p</i> = 0.04). A4C performed consistently for transfusion prediction across both groups (AUROC 0.75-0.78). <b>Conclusions</b>: 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.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(3)
Etimesgut Asker Hastanesi (TR)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Comparative Evaluation of A4C, CHAMPS, and CAGIB Scores for Risk Stratification in Hemodialysis Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding — Mete Ucdal, Evren Ekingen · Diagnostics (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS