Comparison of the AIMS65 and Glasgow Blatchford score for risk stratification in elderly patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Zhao, Shao-Yong; Qu, Qiang; Feng, Kun; Song, Mengxiong

doi:10.1016/j.eurger.2016.10.002

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study by Lu et al [28] found that the AIMS65 was the most convenient UGIB prognostic score to predict in-hospital mortality when compared with the Rockall score and GBS. Consistent with these findings, Zhao et al [20] demonstrated that for the elderly patients with UGIB, the AIMS65 score is superior to GBS in predicting inpatient mortality with a significant AUROC of 0.833. However, the authors noted that both AIMS65 and GBS were similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…[ 19 ] This is especially the case for elderly patients who represent a vulnerable hemodynamic state and have atypical symptoms with high rates of comorbidities. [ 20 ] Therefore, validated and reliable risk stratification systems are required to assess the optimal management of elderly patients with UGIB, which will lead to rapid and accurate patient triage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of Adverse Outcomes using Non-Endoscopic Scoring Systems in Patients Over 80 Years of Age Who Present With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department

Bardakçı¹

2020

Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:The emergency department (ED) admission rate for elderly patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is increasing. The AIMS65 and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are two distinct scoring systems proposed to predict in-hospital and post-discharge mortality, length of stay (LOS), and health-related costs in these patients. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of these scoring systems, in conjunction with the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), to predict 30-day mortality and LOS in UGIB patients who are 80 years of age or older METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 182 patients with non-variceal UGIB who were admitted to the ED of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Hospital. The AIMS65, GBS, and CCI scores were calculated and adverse patient outcomes were assessed. RESULTS:The mean age of patients was 85.59±4.33 years, and 90 (49.5%) of the patients were males. The AIMS65 was superior to the GBS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.877 vs. 0.695, respectively) and CCI (AUROC 0.877 vs. 0.526, respectively) in predicting the 30-day mortality. All three scores performed poorly in predicting the LOS in hospital. The cutoff threshold that maximized sensitivity and specificity for mortality was three for the AIMS65 score (

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of Adverse Outcomes using Non-Endoscopic Scoring Systems in Patients Over 80 Years of Age Who Present With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department

Bardakçı¹

2020

Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is not surprising even though the accuracy showed better performance than the derived study because AIMS65 was established for that (19). Zhao et al using the same optimal cut-off reported good discrimination for inpatient mortality for elderly UGIB patients above 65 years in which they had at least one comorbid, and also reported in non-survival patients they had significantly lower hemoglobin levels (21). Lau et al and Martı´nez-Cara et al reported good and fair discriminative performance for inpatient mortality using cutoff ≥ 1 (11,13).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Total of 20 studies, 10 prospective cohort (6,10-18), 9 retrospective cohort (7,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26), and 1 both prospective and retrospective cohort (27). The population ranged between 129 to 4019.…”

Section: Study and Sample Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

AIMS65 Scoring System for Predicting Clinical Outcomes Among Emergency Department Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Nabiel,

Munawir,

Firdaus

2024

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Several scoring systems were developed for early risk stratification in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) patients. AIMS65 score is a scoring system that only consists of five parameters, it might be used in daily clinical practice because of rapid and easy to calculate within 12 hours of admission. Objective: To evaluate the AIMS65 scoring system as a predictor of mortality, rebleeding events, need for endoscopic therapy, blood transfusion, and ICU admission for all causes of UGIB. Methods: We conducted a systematic review on PubMed, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library databases from the 2012 to 2022 publication period. We included either prospective or retrospective cohort studies that reported UGIB with all kinds of aetiologies who presented in the emergency department (ED), reported discriminative performance for each outcome, and reported the optimal cut-off of AIMS65. The primary measurement of discriminative performance for clinical outcomes includes mortality, rebleeding incidents, need for endoscopic therapy, blood transfusion, and ICU admission. Results: We identified 351 published studies, of which 20 were included in this study. Most of the studies reported discriminative performance for predicting mortality, which amounts to about 18 out of 20 studies. Rebleeding prediction was reported in 11 studies, need for endoscopic therapy in 5 studies, blood transfusion in 7 studies, and ICU admission in 2 studies. Most of the studies reported fair to excellent discriminative performance for predicting mortality, but in contrast for predicting rebleeding, the need for endoscopic therapy, blood transfusion, and ICU admission. Cut-off values≥ 2 are frequently reported to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk patients in mortality. Conclusion: AIMS65 can be applied to patients with UGIB in ED for predicting mortality, but not applicable for predicting rebleeding events, the need for endoscopic therapy, blood transfusion, and ICU admission. It enhances early decision-making and triage for UGIB patients.

show abstract

Comparison of the AIMS65 and Glasgow Blatchford score for risk stratification in elderly patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Cited by 2 publications

References 26 publications

Prediction of Adverse Outcomes using Non-Endoscopic Scoring Systems in Patients Over 80 Years of Age Who Present With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department

Prediction of Adverse Outcomes using Non-Endoscopic Scoring Systems in Patients Over 80 Years of Age Who Present With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department

AIMS65 Scoring System for Predicting Clinical Outcomes Among Emergency Department Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About