Nasser Hajavi, K. Isazadehfar, Mohammad Hosseyn Hosseyni, A. Habibzadeh, Elham Yousefi Ardabili
{"title":"Glasgow Blatchford评分与AIMS65预测上消化道出血患者死亡率的比较","authors":"Nasser Hajavi, K. Isazadehfar, Mohammad Hosseyn Hosseyni, A. Habibzadeh, Elham Yousefi Ardabili","doi":"10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.7n.4p.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common cause of emergency admission in gastrointestinal disease. UGIB could accompany with adverse events if not treated timely. Different scoring systems have been suggested for diagnosing these patients, In this study we aimed to compare the predictive value of two scoring systems AIMS65 and Glasgow Blatchfors scale (GBS) in patients with UGIB. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 153 patients (71.9% male with mean age of 56.72±21.64 years) with acute UGIB between April 2017 and September 2018 were included. Demographic findings, past medical history, laboratory findings, AMIS65 and GBS score, as well as, need for urgent endoscopy, transfusion and mortality were recorded. Both methods value in predicting the outcomes were measured using ROC curves. Results and Conclusion: Urgent endoscopy was performed in 44.4%. The most common finding was peptic ulcer with mostly clean base type. Rebleeding occurred in 15%, need for transfusion was in 44.4% and mortality rate was 5.2%. AIMS65 compared to GBS was superior in predicting mortality (AUC of 0.947 vs. 0.80) but was inferior compared to GBS in predicting need for transfusion (0.849 vs. 0.947). None of the systems could predict the need for urgent endoscopy. AIMS65 with cut off 2 and 0 and GBS with cut off of 12 and 8 could predict mortality and need for transfusion. GBS seems a better system in predicting the need for blood transfusion, while AIMS65 is better system for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with UGIB.","PeriodicalId":92322,"journal":{"name":"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine","volume":"7 1","pages":"17-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Glasgow Blatchford Score and AIMS65 in Predicting Mortality in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding\",\"authors\":\"Nasser Hajavi, K. Isazadehfar, Mohammad Hosseyn Hosseyni, A. Habibzadeh, Elham Yousefi Ardabili\",\"doi\":\"10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.7n.4p.17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common cause of emergency admission in gastrointestinal disease. UGIB could accompany with adverse events if not treated timely. Different scoring systems have been suggested for diagnosing these patients, In this study we aimed to compare the predictive value of two scoring systems AIMS65 and Glasgow Blatchfors scale (GBS) in patients with UGIB. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 153 patients (71.9% male with mean age of 56.72±21.64 years) with acute UGIB between April 2017 and September 2018 were included. Demographic findings, past medical history, laboratory findings, AMIS65 and GBS score, as well as, need for urgent endoscopy, transfusion and mortality were recorded. Both methods value in predicting the outcomes were measured using ROC curves. Results and Conclusion: Urgent endoscopy was performed in 44.4%. The most common finding was peptic ulcer with mostly clean base type. Rebleeding occurred in 15%, need for transfusion was in 44.4% and mortality rate was 5.2%. AIMS65 compared to GBS was superior in predicting mortality (AUC of 0.947 vs. 0.80) but was inferior compared to GBS in predicting need for transfusion (0.849 vs. 0.947). None of the systems could predict the need for urgent endoscopy. AIMS65 with cut off 2 and 0 and GBS with cut off of 12 and 8 could predict mortality and need for transfusion. GBS seems a better system in predicting the need for blood transfusion, while AIMS65 is better system for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with UGIB.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"17-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.7n.4p.17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.7n.4p.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Glasgow Blatchford Score and AIMS65 in Predicting Mortality in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Introduction: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common cause of emergency admission in gastrointestinal disease. UGIB could accompany with adverse events if not treated timely. Different scoring systems have been suggested for diagnosing these patients, In this study we aimed to compare the predictive value of two scoring systems AIMS65 and Glasgow Blatchfors scale (GBS) in patients with UGIB. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 153 patients (71.9% male with mean age of 56.72±21.64 years) with acute UGIB between April 2017 and September 2018 were included. Demographic findings, past medical history, laboratory findings, AMIS65 and GBS score, as well as, need for urgent endoscopy, transfusion and mortality were recorded. Both methods value in predicting the outcomes were measured using ROC curves. Results and Conclusion: Urgent endoscopy was performed in 44.4%. The most common finding was peptic ulcer with mostly clean base type. Rebleeding occurred in 15%, need for transfusion was in 44.4% and mortality rate was 5.2%. AIMS65 compared to GBS was superior in predicting mortality (AUC of 0.947 vs. 0.80) but was inferior compared to GBS in predicting need for transfusion (0.849 vs. 0.947). None of the systems could predict the need for urgent endoscopy. AIMS65 with cut off 2 and 0 and GBS with cut off of 12 and 8 could predict mortality and need for transfusion. GBS seems a better system in predicting the need for blood transfusion, while AIMS65 is better system for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with UGIB.