Literature DB >> 21907980

A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding.

John R Saltzman1, Ying P Tabak, Brian H Hyett, Xiaowu Sun, Anne C Travis, Richard S Johannes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the early use of a risk stratification score in upper GI bleeding is recommended, existing risk scores are not widely used in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop and validate an easily calculated bedside risk score, AIMS65, by using data routinely available at initial evaluation.
DESIGN: Data from patients admitted from the emergency department with acute upper GI bleeding were extracted from a database containing information from 187 U.S. hospitals. Recursive partitioning was applied to derive a risk score for in-hospital mortality by using data from 2004 to 2005 in 29,222 patients. The score was validated by using data from 2006 to 2007 in 32,504 patients. Accuracy to predict mortality was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost of admission.
RESULTS: The 5 factors present at admission with the best discrimination were albumin less than 3.0 g/dL, international normalized ratio greater than 1.5, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or lower, and age older than 65 years. For those with no risk factors, the mortality rate was 0.3% compared with 31.8% in patients with all 5 (P < .001). The model had a high predictive accuracy (AUROC = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.81), which was confirmed in the validation cohort (AUROC = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.75-0.79). Longer LOS and increased costs were seen with higher scores (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Database data used does not include outcomes such as rebleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: AIMS65 is a simple, accurate risk score that predicts in-hospital mortality, LOS, and cost in patients with acute upper GI bleeding.
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21907980     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  87 in total

1.  Prediction scores or gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling for triaging patients that present with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Nl de Groot; Mgh van Oijen; K Kessels; M Hemmink; Blam Weusten; R Timmer; Wl Hazen; N van Lelyveld; Wl Curvers; Lc Baak; R Verburg; Jh Bosman; Lrh de Wijkerslooth; J de Rooij; Ng Venneman; M Pennings; K van Hee; Rch Scheffer; Rl van Eijk; R Meiland; Pd Siersema; Aj Bredenoord
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 2.  Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Authors:  Sara Monteiro; Tiago Cúrdia Gonçalves; Joana Magalhães; José Cotter
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol       Date:  2016-02-15

3.  AIMS65: a promising upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk score but further validation required.

Authors:  Ray Boyapati; Avik Majumdar; Marcus Robertson
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Scoring systems for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Which one scores better?

Authors:  Vinay Dhir; Rahul Shah
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-04

5.  Comparison of risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in western India: A prospective analysis.

Authors:  Sanjay Chandnani; Pravin Rathi; Nikhil Sonthalia; Suhas Udgirkar; Shubham Jain; Qais Contractor; Samit Jain; Anupam Kumar Singh
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-05-24

6.  Management for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly patients: the experience of a tertiary university hospital.

Authors:  Koichiro Kawaguchi; Hiroki Kurumi; Yohei Takeda; Kazuo Yashima; Hajime Isomoto
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-04

7.  Comparison of various prognostic scores in variceal and non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Gyanranjan Rout; Sanchit Sharma; Deepak Gunjan; Saurabh Kedia; Baibaswata Nayak
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03-04

8.  Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and Rockall score in a European series of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: performance when predicting in-hospital and delayed mortality.

Authors:  Juan G Martínez-Cara; Rita Jiménez-Rosales; Margarita Úbeda-Muñoz; Mercedes López de Hierro; Javier de Teresa; Eduardo Redondo-Cerezo
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 4.623

9.  The Novel Scoring System for 30-Day Mortality in Patients with Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sejin Hwang; Seong Woo Jeon; Joong Goo Kwon; Dong Wook Lee; Chang Yoon Ha; Kwang Bum Cho; ByungIk Jang; Jung Bae Park; Youn Sun Park
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Dennis Shung; Michael Simonov; Mark Gentry; Benjamin Au; Loren Laine
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.