The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding - 19/03/13
, Marwan S. Abougergi, MD 1, 2, , Joseph P. Charpentier, MD 3, Navin L. Kumar, MD 2, Suzana Brozovic, MD 1, 2, Brian L. Claggett, MA 4, Anne C. Travis, MD 1, 2, John R. Saltzman, MD 1, 2, ⁎Reprint requests: John R. Saltzman, MD, Endoscopy Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115Résumé |
Introduction |
We previously derived and validated the AIMS65 score, a mortality prognostic scale for upper GI bleeding (UGIB).
Objective |
To validate the AIMS65 score in a different patient population and compare it with the Glasgow-Blatchford risk score (GBRS).
Design |
Retrospective cohort study.
Patients |
Adults with a primary diagnosis of UGIB.
Main Outcome Measurements |
Primary outcome: inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes: composite 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.
Results |
Of 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.
Limitations |
Retrospective, single-center study.
Conclusion |
The 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.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Abbreviations : AUROC, GBRS, ICU, PRBC, UGIB
Plan
| DISCLOSURE: The authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. |
|
| If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr Saltzman at jsaltzman@partners.org. |
Vol 77 - N° 4
P. 551-557 - avril 2013 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- The role of high-resolution endoscopy and narrow-band imaging in the evaluation of upper GI neoplasia in familial adenomatous polyposis
- Maria Lopez-Ceron, Frank J.C. van den Broek, Elisabeth M. Mathus-Vliegen, Karam S. Boparai, Susanne van Eeden, Paul Fockens, Evelien Dekker
- Learning curves for EUS by using cumulative sum analysis: implications for American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations for training
- Sachin Wani, Gregory A. Coté, Rajesh Keswani, Daniel Mullady, Riad Azar, Faris Murad, Steve Edmundowicz, Srinadh Komanduri, Lee McHenry, Mohammad A. Al-Haddad, Matthew Hall, Christine E. Hovis, Thomas G. Hollander, Dayna Early
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?