Literature DB >> 28839841

Risk assessment in acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding: the AIMS65 score in comparison with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in a Scottish population.

Andrew J Palmer1, Francesca Moroni1, Sally Mcleish1, Geraldine Campbell1, Jonathan Bardgett1, Joanna Round1, Conor McMullan1, Majid Rashid1, Robert Clark1, Dara De Las Heras1, Claire Vincent1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The early use of risk stratification scores is recommended for patients presenting with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (ANVGIB). AIMS65 is a novel, recently derived scoring system, which has been proposed as an alternative to the more established Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS).
OBJECTIVE: To validate the AIMS65 scoring system in a predominantly Caucasian population from Scotland and compare it with the GBS.
DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients presenting to a district general hospital in Scotland with a suspected diagnosis of ANVGIB who underwent inpatient upper GI endoscopy between March 2008 and March 2013. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures were requirement for endoscopic intervention, endoscopy refractory bleeding, blood transfusion, rebleeding and admission to high dependency unit (HDU) and intensive care unit (ICU). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was calculated for each score.
RESULTS: 328 patients were included. Of these 65.9% (n=216) were men and 34.1% (n=112) women. The mean age was 65.2 years and 30-day mortality 5.2%. AIMS65 was superior to the GBS in predicting mortality, with an AUROC of 0.87 versus 0.70 (p<0.05). The GBS was superior for blood transfusion (AUROC 0.84 vs 0.62, p<0.05) and admission to HDU (AUROC 0.73 vs 0.62, p<0.05). There were no significant differences between the scores with respect to requirement for endoscopic intervention, endoscopy refractory bleeding, rebleeding and admission to ICU.
CONCLUSIONS: AIMS65 accurately predicted mortality in a Scottish population of patients with ANVGIB. Large prospective studies are now required to establish the exact role of AIMS65 in triaging patients with ANVGIB.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GASTROINTESINAL ENDOSCOPY; GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING

Year:  2015        PMID: 28839841      PMCID: PMC5369468          DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2015-100594

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol        ISSN: 2041-4137


  15 in total

1.  Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit.

Authors:  Sarah A Hearnshaw; Richard F A Logan; Derek Lowe; Simon P L Travis; Mike F Murphy; Kelvin R Palmer
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Is the AIMS65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding?

Authors:  Sung Hoon Jung; Jung Hwan Oh; Hye Yeon Lee; Joon Won Jeong; Se Eun Go; Chan Ran You; Eun Jung Jeon; Sang Wook Choi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding.

Authors:  Robert V Bryant; Paul Kuo; Kate Williamson; Chantelle Yam; Mark N Schoeman; Richard H Holloway; Nam Q Nguyen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems for risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department.

Authors:  Elif Yaka; Serkan Yılmaz; Nurettin Özgür Doğan; Murat Pekdemir
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 3.451

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

Authors:  John R Saltzman; Ying P Tabak; Brian H Hyett; Xiaowu Sun; Anne C Travis; Richard S Johannes
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-09-10       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

Authors:  O Blatchford; W R Murray; M Blatchford
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-10-14       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Alan N Barkun; Marc Bardou; Ernst J Kuipers; Joseph Sung; Richard H Hunt; Myriam Martel; Paul Sinclair
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding.

Authors:  Brian H Hyett; Marwan S Abougergi; Joseph P Charpentier; Navin L Kumar; Suzana Brozovic; Brian L Claggett; Anne C Travis; John R Saltzman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Causes of mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective cohort study of 10,428 cases.

Authors:  Joseph J Y Sung; Kelvin K F Tsoi; Terry K W Ma; Man-Yee Yung; James Y W Lau; Philip W Y Chiu
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Emergency endoscopy for acute gastrointestinal bleeding: prognostic value of endoscopic hemostasis and the AIMS65 score in Japanese patients.

Authors:  Shotaro Nakamura; Takayuki Matsumoto; Hiroshi Sugimori; Motohiro Esaki; Takanari Kitazono; Makoto Hashizume
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 7.559

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in the management of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Authors:  Ian Beales
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-09-27
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.