Glasgow Blatchford评分与AIMS65预测上消化道出血患者死亡率的比较

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}
引用次数: 3

摘要

引言:上消化道出血(UGIB)是胃肠道疾病急诊入院最常见的原因。如果不及时治疗,UGIB可能伴随不良事件。有人建议使用不同的评分系统来诊断这些患者。在本研究中,我们旨在比较AIMS65和Glasgow Blatchfors量表(GBS)两种评分系统对UGIB患者的预测价值。方法:在这项横断面研究中,纳入了2017年4月至2018年9月期间153名急性UGIB患者(71.9%男性,平均年龄56.72±21.64岁)。记录人口统计学结果、既往病史、实验室检查结果、AMIS65和GBS评分,以及是否需要紧急内窥镜检查、输血和死亡率。两种方法在预测结果方面的价值均使用ROC曲线进行测量。结果与结论:急诊内镜检查占44.4%,最常见的是消化性溃疡,多为清底型。再出血发生率为15%,需要输血发生率为44.4%,死亡率为5.2%。AIMS65与GBS相比在预测死亡率方面更好(AUC为0.947 vs.0.80),但在预测输血需要方面不如GBS(0.849 vs.0.947)。没有一个系统能够预测是否需要紧急内窥镜检查。AIMS65的截断值为2和0,GBS的截断值分别为12和8,可以预测死亡率和输血需求。GBS似乎是预测输血需求的更好系统,而AIMS65是预测UGIB患者住院死亡率的更好系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信