• Gastrointest. Endosc. · Apr 2013

    Comparative Study

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

    • Brian H Hyett, Marwan S Abougergi, Joseph P Charpentier, Navin L Kumar, Suzana Brozovic, Brian L Claggett, Anne C Travis, and John R Saltzman.
    • Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
    • Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013 Apr 1;77(4):551-7.

    IntroductionWe previously derived and validated the AIMS65 score, a mortality prognostic scale for upper GI bleeding (UGIB).ObjectiveTo validate the AIMS65 score in a different patient population and compare it with the Glasgow-Blatchford risk score (GBRS).DesignRetrospective cohort study.PatientsAdults with a primary diagnosis of UGIB.Main Outcome MeasurementsPrimary Outcomeinpatient mortality.Secondary Outcomescomposite clinical endpoint of inpatient mortality, rebleeding, and endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention; blood transfusion; intensive care unit admission; rebleeding; length of stay; timing of endoscopy. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each score.ResultsOf the 278 study patients, 6.5% died and 35% experienced the composite clinical endpoint. The AIMS65 score was superior in predicting inpatient mortality (AUROC, 0.93 vs 0.68; P < .001), whereas the GBRS was superior in predicting blood transfusions (AUROC, 0.85 vs 0.65; P < .01) The 2 scores were similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint (AUROC, 0.62 vs 0.68; P = .13) as well as the secondary outcomes. A GBRS of 10 and 12 or more maximized the sum of the sensitivity and specificity for inpatient mortality and rebleeding, respectively. The cutoff was 2 or more for the AIMS65 score for both outcomes.LimitationsRetrospective, single-center study.ConclusionThe AIMS65 score is superior to the GBRS in predicting inpatient mortality from UGIB, whereas the GBRS is superior for predicting blood transfusion. Both scores are similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint and other outcomes in clinical care and resource use.Copyright © 2013 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…