Is the AIMS 65 Score Useful in Prepdicting Clinical Outcomes in Korean Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

Choe, Jung Wan; Kim, Seung Young; Hyun, Jong Jin; Jung, Sung Woo; Jung, Young Kul; Koo, Ja Seol; Yim, Hyung Joon; Lee, Sang Woo

doi:10.5009/gnl16607

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It compared AIMS65, Rockall, GBS scores and found all three were statistically significant in predicting mortality in variceal and non-variceal bleeding (AUROC 0.705 vs 0.804, 0.665 vs 0.661, 0.665 vs 0.679, respectively). In his study, for predicting rebleeding Rockall score (AUROC 0.723) performed better than GBS (AUROC 0.634) and AIMS65 was not found significant (22) . This echoed similar finding to our study that AIMS65 overall is not useful for predicting rebleed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Clinical Utility of Risk Scores in Variceal Bleeding

Chandnani

Rathi

Udgirkar

et al. 2019

Arq. Gastroenterol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Variceal bleeding remains important cause of upper gastrointestinal bleed. Various risk scores are used in risk stratification for non-variceal bleed. Their utility in variceal bleeding patients is not clear. This study aims to compare probability of these scores in predicting various outcomes in same population. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare probability of these scores in predicting various outcomes in same population. To study characteristics and validate AIMS65, Rockall, Glasgow Blatchford score(GBS), Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva (PNED) score in variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed (UGIB) patients for predicting various outcomes in our population. METHODS: Three hundred subjects with UGIB were screened prospectively. Of these 141 patients with variceal bleeding were assessed with clinical, blood investigations and endoscopy and risk scores were calculated and compared to non-variceal cases. All cases were followed up for 30 days for mortality, rebleeding, requirement of blood transfusion and need of radiological or surgical intervention. RESULTS: Variceal bleeding (141) was more common than non variceal (134) and 25 had negative endoscopy. In variceal group, cirrhosis (85%) was most common etiology. Distribution of age and sex were similar in both groups. Presence of coffee coloured vomitus (P=0.002), painless bleed (P=0.001), edema (P=0.001), ascites (P=0.001), hemoglobin <7.5 gms (P<0.001), pH<7.35 (P<0.001), serum bicarbonate level <17.6 mmol/L (P<0.001), serum albumin<2.75 gms% (P<0.001), platelet count <1.2 lacs/µL (P<0.001), high INR 1.35 (P<0.001), BUN >25mmol/L (P<0.001), and ASA status (P<0.001), high lactate >2.85 mmol/L (P=0.001) were significant. However, no factor was found significant on multivariate analysis. Rockall was found to be significant in predicting mortality and rebleed. AIMS65 was also significant in predicting mortality. GBS was significant in predicting blood transfusion and need of intervention. PNED score was significant in all events except mortality. CONCLUSION: All four scores had lower predictive potential in predicting events in variceal bleed. However, AIMS65 & Rockall score were significant in predicting mortality, while GBS in predicting need of transfusion and intervention. PNED score was significant in all events except mortality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Clinical Utility of Risk Scores in Variceal Bleeding

Chandnani

Rathi

Udgirkar

et al. 2019

Arq. Gastroenterol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, variceal bleeding is mostly associated with massive hemorrhage, and prognosis is closely correlated with the severity of liver failure. 24 Serum albumin levels and INR are components of AIMS65 and reflect the baseline liver function of patients who had chronic liver disease at the time of initial assessment. 15 Hence, AIMS65 showed significant accuracy in predicting outcomes in patients with VUGIB.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our data, consistent with several previous studies, support the assumption that the clinical usefulness of these scoring systems in terms of this outcome is low. 24,29,30 It would be more important to develop a new precise score for predicting rebleeding in the future.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective Comparison of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common cause of hospital admission worldwide, and has a mortality rate of between 2% and 15%. 1 Recent guidelines have recommended stratifying patients with UGIB into higher and lower risk categories for treatment decisions and prognostication. 1-3 The widely used scoring systems include the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and AIMS65 score (AIMS65) (Table 1); however, their role in clinical practice remains uncertain. 4-6 Compared with other existing scores, AIMS65 is simple, easy to remember, can be calculated with nonweighted elements, and can be routinely evaluated in the emergency department. 7 These scores have been validated and compared, in terms of their accuracy in predicting various outcomes among patients presenting with UGIB, in numerous studies. 7-11 Most of the previous studies included both patients with nonvariceal

show abstract

“…The authors read with interest the article about the performance of three risk stratifying scores in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) applied in a Korean population, by Choe et al ., 1 recently published in Gut and Liver .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although these scores systems are helpful to stratify UGIB patients, its application to different populations should be used with caution, since the causes of UGIB differ considerably among countries. 1 An ideal scoring system that is uniformly and universally appropriate in clinical practice is yet to be defined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%