The comparison between Glasgow Blatchford score and AIMS65 score in predicting outcome in upper gastrointestinal bleeding for Asian population
Background: AIMS65 is a score designed to predict in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs of gastrointestinal bleeding. Objectives: Our aims were to evaluate the performance of the AIMS65 compared with Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS) in predicting in-patient mortality, and the secondary o...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Monograph |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/58630/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/58630/1/Final%20result%20AIMS65%20study_RMC_IREP.doc http://irep.iium.edu.my/58630/2/Final%20result%20AIMS65%20study_RMC_IREP.doc |
| Summary: | Background: AIMS65 is a score designed to predict in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs of gastrointestinal bleeding.
Objectives: Our aims were to evaluate the performance of the AIMS65 compared with Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS) in predicting in-patient mortality, and the secondary outcomes include composite clinical endpoint of intensive care unit (ICU) admission; timing of endoscopy; re-endoscopy; blood transfusion and length of hospital stay.
Methodology: The study was successful in recruiting 103 patients. Clinical and biochemical data, transfusion requirements, endoscopic treatment and its timing, and outcomes for 3 months after admission were collected. Clinical outcomes were in-hospital, re-endoscopy, blood transfusions, and length of stay.
Findings: In receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses, AIMS65 was significantly better in predicting inpatient mortality compared with GBS (0.196 vs 0.464). In fact, AIMS65 showed a statistically significant association with mortality for patients with AUGIB (P=0.012). AIMS65 and GBS were identical in predicting ICU (0.600 vs 0.533), timing of endoscopy (0.428 vs 0.458), re-endoscopy (0.407 vs 0.537), blood transfusion (0.694 vs 0.667) and length of hospital stay (0.600 vs 0.350).
Conclusion: AIMS65 is a better score predicting mortality compared with GBS. AIMS65 is comparable to GBS in essential endpoints such as the need for ICU admission, timing of endoscopy, re-endoscopic intervention, blood transfusion and length of hospital stay. |
|---|