预测急诊科上消化道出血患者临床结局的 AIMS65 评分系统

Rifaldy Nabiel, Al Munawir, Jauhar Firdaus
{"title":"预测急诊科上消化道出血患者临床结局的 AIMS65 评分系统","authors":"Rifaldy Nabiel, Al Munawir, Jauhar Firdaus","doi":"10.20473/ijar.v6i12024.58-72","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":117902,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimation","volume":"46 32","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AIMS65 Scoring System for Predicting Clinical Outcomes Among Emergency Department Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding\",\"authors\":\"Rifaldy Nabiel, Al Munawir, Jauhar Firdaus\",\"doi\":\"10.20473/ijar.v6i12024.58-72\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indonesian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimation\",\"volume\":\"46 32\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indonesian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20473/ijar.v6i12024.58-72\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20473/ijar.v6i12024.58-72","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:为对上消化道出血(UGIB)患者进行早期风险分层,已开发出多种评分系统。AIMS65 评分是一种仅由五个参数组成的评分系统,因其在入院 12 小时内计算迅速、简便,可用于日常临床实践。目的评估 AIMS65 评分系统作为所有原因导致的 UGIB 患者死亡率、再出血事件、内镜治疗需求、输血和入住 ICU 的预测指标。方法:我们在 PubMed、ScienceDirect、ProQuest 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中对 2012 年至 2022 年出版的文献进行了系统性回顾。我们纳入了前瞻性或回顾性队列研究,这些研究报告了在急诊科(ED)就诊的各种病因的 UGIB,报告了每种结果的判别性能,并报告了 AIMS65 的最佳临界值。临床结果判别性能的主要衡量指标包括死亡率、再出血事件、内镜治疗需求、输血和入住 ICU。结果:我们确定了 351 项已发表的研究,其中 20 项被纳入本研究。大多数研究报告了预测死亡率的鉴别性能,20 项研究中约有 18 项。11项研究报告了再出血预测,5项研究报告了内镜治疗需求,7项研究报告了输血,2项研究报告了入住重症监护室。大多数研究报告称,预测死亡率的判别能力从一般到优秀不等,但预测再出血、内镜治疗需求、输血和入住重症监护室的判别能力却与之形成鲜明对比。经常有报告称,临界值≥ 2 可区分死亡率方面的高危和低危患者。结论:AIMS65 可用于预测急诊室 UGIB 患者的死亡率,但不适用于预测再出血事件、内镜治疗需求、输血和入住 ICU。AIMS65 可加强对 UGIB 患者的早期决策和分流。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AIMS65 Scoring System for Predicting Clinical Outcomes Among Emergency Department Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信