Prospective Comparison of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
2
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine the performance of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS),and Rockall score (RS) in predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and to compare the resultsbetween patients with nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) and those with variceal UGIB (VUGIB). Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study between March 2016 and December 2017. Receiver operatingcharacteristic curve analysis was performed for all outcomes for comparison. The associations of all three scores with mortality wereevaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the total of 337 patients with UGIB, 267 patients (79.2%) had NVUGIB. AIMS65 was significantly associated (odds ratio[OR], 1.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.148–2.620), RS was marginally associated (OR, 1.225; 95% CI, 0.973–1.543), but GBSwas not associated (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890–1.163) with mortality risk in patients with UGIB. However, all three scores accuratelypredicted all other outcomes (all p<0.05) except rebleeding (p>0.05). Only AIMS65 precisely predicted mortality, the need for bloodtransfusion and the composite endpoint (all p<0.05) in patients with VUGIB. Conclusions: AIMS65 is superior to GBS and RS in predicting mortality in patients with UGIB, and also precisely predicts the needfor blood transfusion and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. No scoring system could satisfactorily predict rebleedingin all patients with UGIB.
Abstract
Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine the performance of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS),and Rockall score (RS) in predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and to compare the resultsbetween patients with nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) and those with variceal UGIB (VUGIB). Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study between March 2016 and December 2017. Receiver operatingcharacteristic curve analysis was performed for all outcomes for comparison. The associations of all three scores with mortality wereevaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the total of 337 patients with UGIB, 267 patients (79.2%) had NVUGIB. AIMS65 was significantly associated (odds ratio[OR], 1.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.148–2.620), RS was marginally associated (OR, 1.225; 95% CI, 0.973–1.543), but GBSwas not associated (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890–1.163) with mortality risk in patients with UGIB. However, all three scores accuratelypredicted all other outcomes (all p<0.05) except rebleeding (p>0.05). Only AIMS65 precisely predicted mortality, the need for bloodtransfusion and the composite endpoint (all p<0.05) in patients with VUGIB. Conclusions: AIMS65 is superior to GBS and RS in predicting mortality in patients with UGIB, and also precisely predicts the needfor blood transfusion and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. No scoring system could satisfactorily predict rebleedingin all patients with UGIB.
참고문헌 (31)
- Barkun AN, "International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding", Ann Intern Med, 152, pp.101~113 (2010)
- Laine L, "Management of patients with ulcer bleeding", Am J Gastroenterol, 107, pp.345~360 (2012)
- Gralnek IM, "Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage : European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(ESGE)guideline", Endoscopy, 47, pp.a1~a46 (2015)
- Rockall TA, "Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage", Gut, 38, pp.316~321 (1996)
- 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)
- 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)
- Stanley AJ, "Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study", BMJ, 356, pp.i6432~ (2017)
- Sung Min Park, "Comparison of AIMS65 Score and Other Scoring Systems for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Koreans with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding", Gut and Liver, 10(4), pp.526~531 (2016), 거트앤리버 소화기연관학회협의회
- Gu L, "Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in predicting the risk of in-hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding : a retrospective observational study in Nanjing, China", BMC Gastroenterol, 18, pp.98~ (2018)
- Martínez-Cara JG, "Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and Rockall score in a European series of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding : performance when predicting in-hospital and delayed mortality", United European Gastroenterol J, 4, pp.371~379 (2016)
- Marmo R, "Predicting mortality in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeders : validation of the Italian PNED score and prospective comparison with the Rockall score", Am J Gastroenterol, 105, pp.1284~1291 (2010)
- Jung SH, "Is the AIMS65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding?", World J Gastroenterol, 20, pp.1846~1851 (2014)
- 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)
- Garcia-Tsao G, "Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis : risk stratification, diagnosis, and management : 2016 practice guidance by the American Association for the study of liver diseases", Hepatology, 65, pp.310~335 (2017)
- de Franchis R, "Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno VI consensus workshop: stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension", J Hepatol, 63, pp.743~752 (2015)
- Villanueva C, "Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding", N Engl J Med, 368, pp.11~21 (2013)
- 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)
- Bryant RV, "Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding", Gastrointest Endosc, 78, pp.576~583 (2013)
- Abougergi MS, "A prospective, multicenter study of the AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage outcomes", J Clin Gastroenterol, 50, pp.464~469 (2016)
- Yaka E, "Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems for risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department", Acad Emerg Med, 22, pp.22~30 (2015)
- Aquarius M, "Prospective multicenter validation of the Glasgow Blatchford bleeding score in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage presenting at an emergency department", Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 27, pp.1011~1016 (2015)
- 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)
- 최정완, "Is the AIMS 65 Score Useful in Prepdicting Clinical Outcomes in Korean Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?", Gut and Liver, 11(6), pp.813~820 (2017), 거트앤리버 소화기연관학회협의회
- Thanapirom K, "Prospective comparison of three risk scoring systems in non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding", J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 31, pp.761~767 (2016)
- Budimir I, "Glasgow Blatchford, pre-endoscopic Rockall and AIMS65 scores show no difference in predicting rebleeding rate and mortality in variceal bleeding", Scand J Gastroenterol, 51, pp.1375~1379 (2016)
- Gonçalo Alexandrino, "Comparison of the AIMS65 Score with Other Risk Stratification Scores in Upper Variceal and Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding", Gut and Liver, 12(1), pp.111~113 (2018), 거트앤리버 소화기연관학회협의회
- Robertson M, "Risk stratification in acute variceal bleeding : comparison of the AIMS65 score to established upper gastrointestinal bleeding and liver disease severity risk stratification scoring systems in predicting mortality and rebleeding", Dig Endosc, 32, pp.761~768 (2020)
- Kim BJ, "Comparison of scoring systems for the prediction of outcomes in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding : a prospective study", Dig Dis Sci, 54, pp.2523~2529 (2009)
- Yang HM, "Comparison of scoring systems for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding : a multicenter prospective cohort study", J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 31, pp.119~125 (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)
