Is the AIMS 65 Score Useful in Prepdicting Clinical Outcomes in Korean Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background/Aims: Various clinical scoring systems, including the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall risk score (RS), and AIMS65 score (AIMS65), have been validated to predict the clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We compared the performance of these three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with UGIB in Korea. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 286 patients with UGIB who visited emergency department. The primary outcome was the need for clinical intervention (endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical) and blood transfusion. Results: The causes of UGIB were esophageal/gastric varices in 64 patients, peptic ulcer in 168, Mallory-Weiss tear in 32, malignancy of UGI tract in eight, and unknown in 14. One hundred seventy-four (61%) patients required blood transfusion, 166 (58%) required endoscopic intervention, and 10 (3.5%) required surgical intervention. The GBS outperformed the RS and AIMS65 in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention. Conclusions: The GBS and RS were more accurate than AIMS65 in predicting the need for clinical interventions and transfusion patients with UGIB, regardless of variceal or nonvariceal bleeding. The AIMS65 may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcomes of UGIB in Korea.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Various clinical scoring systems, including the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall risk score (RS), and AIMS65 score (AIMS65), have been validated to predict the clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We compared the performance of these three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with UGIB in Korea. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 286 patients with UGIB who visited emergency department. The primary outcome was the need for clinical intervention (endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical) and blood transfusion. Results: The causes of UGIB were esophageal/gastric varices in 64 patients, peptic ulcer in 168, Mallory-Weiss tear in 32, malignancy of UGI tract in eight, and unknown in 14. One hundred seventy-four (61%) patients required blood transfusion, 166 (58%) required endoscopic intervention, and 10 (3.5%) required surgical intervention. The GBS outperformed the RS and AIMS65 in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention. Conclusions: The GBS and RS were more accurate than AIMS65 in predicting the need for clinical interventions and transfusion patients with UGIB, regardless of variceal or nonvariceal bleeding. The AIMS65 may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcomes of UGIB in Korea.
참고문헌 (17)
- van Leerdam ME, "Acute upper GI bleeding: did anything change? Time trend analysis of incidence and outcome of acute upper GI bleeding between 1993", 1994 and 2000, 2003, pp.98, 1494~1499
- Vreeburg EM, "Validation of the Rockall risk scoring system in upper gastrointestinal bleeding", Gut, 44, pp.331~335 (1999)
- Blatchford O, "A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage", Lancet, 356, pp.1318~1321 (2000)
- Saltzman JR, "A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding", Gastrointest Endosc, 74, pp.1215~1224 (2011)
- Reed EA, "Is the Glasgow Blatchford score useful in the risk assessment of patients presenting with variceal haemorrhage", Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 26, pp.432~437 (2014)
- 정일권, "출혈 소화성궤양 치료의 가이드라인", 대한소화기학회지, 54(5), pp.298~308 (2009), 대한소화기학회
- Jung SH, "Is the AIMS65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding", World J Gastroenterol, 20, pp.1846~1851 (2014)
- Chen IC, "Risk scoring systems to predict need for clinical intervention for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding", Am J Emerg Med, 25, pp.774~779 (2007)
- Romagnuolo J, "Simple clinical predictors may obviate urgent endoscopy in selected patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding", Arch Intern Med, 167, pp.265~270 (2007)
- Rockall TA, "Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage", Gut, 38, pp.316~321 (1996)
- Stanley AJ, "Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation", Lancet, 373, pp.42~47 (2009)
- Cheng DW, "A modified Glasgow Blatchford score improves risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleed: a prospective comparison of scoring systems", Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 36, pp.782~789 (2012)
- Stanley AJ, "Multicentre comparison of the Glasgow Blatchford and Rockall scores in the prediction of clinical end-points after upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage", Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 34, pp.470~475 (2011)
- Hyett BH, "The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding", Gastrointest Endosc, 77, pp.551~557 (2013)
- Robertson M, "Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems", Gastrointest Endosc, 83, pp.1151~1160 (2016)
- Nakamura S, "Emergency endoscopy for acute gastrointestinal bleeding: prognostic value of endoscopic hemostasis and the AIMS65 score in Japanese patients", Dig Endosc, 26, pp.369~376 (2014)
- Ragesh Babu Thandassery, "Clinical Application of AIMS65 Scores to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage", Clinical Endoscopy, 48(5), pp.380~384 (2015), 대한소화기내시경학회