Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children: The Role of Endoscopy and the Sheffield Scoring System in a Resource-Limited Setting

Abstract

Objective: To document the clinical presentation, endoscopic diagnosis, and Sheffield scores of children with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding who were referred for endoscopy at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital. The participants who needed endoscopy based on clinical criteria and according to the Sheffield scores were also documented. Methods: This study analyzed the records of 111 children with GI bleeding retrospectively from January 2013 to January 2021, while 9 children were recruited prospectively from February 2021 to March 2022. Receiver operating curves and area under the curve were generated to test the ability of the Sheffield scores to predict rebleeds, mortality, and the need for endoscopic intervention for upper GI bleeds. Results: One hundred and twenty participants were recruited. Ninety-one (75.8%) presented with upper GI bleeding (UGIB), while 29 (24.2%) had lower GI bleeding (LGIB). Only 70 (58.3%) (53 UGIB and 17 LGIB) had endoscopy performed. For UGIB, 5 (9.4%) had no source of the bleeding identified at endoscopy, 12 (22.6%) had variceal bleeding, and 36 (67.9%) had nonvariceal bleeding. Colonoscopy revealed juvenile polyps in 5 (29.4%), indeterminate colitis in 5 (29.4%), ulcerative colitis in 4 (23.5%), Crohn’s disease in 1 (5.9%), and hemorrhoids in 2 (11.8%) participants, respectively. The Sheffield score was ≥8 in 42 (46.1%) of the participants who presented only with UGIB (hematemesis and melena). The scores were significantly related to the type of bleeds, rebleeds, and deaths (P = 0.00). Conclusion: The clinical and endoscopic findings in this study are similar to those reported previously. The Sheffield scoring was useful in assessing Nigerian children. However, due to limited access and other restraints, endoscopy was not performed on all the study participants even when the scoring system was suggestive. The availability, and therefore, utility of GI endoscopy in this setting are still suboptimal. The need for the provision of adequate equipment and resources and the training of personnel is thus recommended.