Comparison of scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the performance of the Oakland, Glasgow-Blatchford, and AIMS65 scores in predicting the clinical outcomes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted from July 2020 to July 2021. Patients admitted with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding were enrolled. The Oakland, Glasgow-Blatchford, and AIMS65 scores were calculated. The primary outcome was validating the performance of the scores in predicting severe LGIB; secondary outcomes were comparing the performance of the scores in predicting the need for blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, in-hospital rebleeding, and mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated for all outcomes. The associations between all three scores and the primary outcomes were calculated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with acute LGIB (n = 150) were enrolled (88 [58.7%] men and mean age: 63.6 ± 17.3 years). The rates of severe LGIB, need for blood transfusion, hemostatic intervention, in-hospital rebleeding, and in-hospital mortality were 54.7%, 79.3%, 10.7%, and 3.3%, respectively. The Oakland and Glasgow-Blatchford scores had comparable performance in predicting severe LGIB, need for blood transfusion, and mortality, outperforming the AIMS65 score. All scores were suboptimal for predicting hemostatic interventions and rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate the predictive performances of the Oakland score and the GBS are excellent and comparable for severe LGIB, the need for blood transfusion, and in-hospital mortality in patients with acute LGIB. Thus, GBS could be considered as an alternative predictive score for stratification of the patients with acute LGIB.

Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score and modified Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score in predicting outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: An accuracy and calibration study

BACKGROUND

Albumin, international normalized ratio (INR), mental status, systolic blood pressure, age >65 years (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (GBS) and modified GBS (mGBS) are three pre-endoscopy scoring systems used in the risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The utility of such scoring systems in a population is estimated by their accuracy and calibration in the population. We aimed at validating and comparing the accuracy of the three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes including in-hospital mortality, need for blood transfusion, endoscopic treatment and rebleeding risk.

METHOD

We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study on patients with UGIB at a tertiary care center in India over 12 months. Clinical and laboratory data was collected from all patients admitted with UGIB. All patients were risk stratified using AIMS65, GBS and mGBS. The clinical outcome examined were: in-hospital mortality, requirement of blood transfusion, need for endoscopic treatment and rebleeding during hospital stay. The area under receiver-operating curve (AUROC) was calculated to assess the performance and calibration curves (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit curve) were plotted to examine how accurately the model describes the data of all three scoring systems.

RESULTS

Total 260 patients were included in the study, of which 236 (90.8%) were males. As many as 144 (55.4%) patients required blood transfusion and 64 (30.8%) required endoscopic treatment. While the incidence of rebleeding was 7.7%, in hospital mortality was 15.4%. Of 208 who underwent endoscopy, the most common causes identified were varices (49%) and gastritis (18.2%), followed by ulcer (11%), Mallory-Weiss tear (8.1%), portal hypertensive gastropathy (6.7%), malignancy (4.8%) and esophageal candidiasis (1.9%). The median AIMS65 score was 1, GBS 7 and mGBS 6. The area under curve (AUROC) for AIMS65, GBS and mGBS was (0.77, 0.73,0.70), (0.75, 0.82,0.83), (0.56, 0.58,0.83), (0.81, 0.94,0.53) for in-hospital mortality, blood transfusion requirement, endoscopic treatment and rebleeding prediction, respectively.

CONCLUSION

GBS and mGBS are superior to AIMS65 in predicting the requirement of blood transfusion and rebleeding risk, whereas in-hospital mortality was better predicted by AIMS 65. Both scores performed poorly in predicting the need of endoscopic treatment. An AIMS65 of 0,1 and a GBS of ≤ 1 are not associated with significant adverse events. A poor calibration of the scores in our population points to the lack of generalizability of these scoring systems.

Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB.

AREA COVERED

A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making.

EXPERT OPINION

The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.

Comparison of risk scoring systems for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients after renal transplantation: a retrospective observational study in Hunan, China

Background

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common complication in renal transplant recipients. However, the risk stratification value of bleeding scoring systems in these patients is unclear, and data regarding risk factors are limited.

Methods

Clinical data of renal transplant recipients in The Third Xiangya hospital were collected. The predictive ability of Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), pre-endoscopy Rockall score (pRS), and AIMS65 score were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Risk factors of UGIB were analyzed using binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 220 patients were enrolled, of which 55 with UGIB. Endoscopy improved the overall survival rate of patients. Glasgow Blatchford score (AUROC 0.868) performed best at predicting UGIB patients who need intervention or death, with a threshold of 10, sensitivity and specificity were 82.4% and 70%, respectively. In terms of predicting mortality, the GBS score was comparable with AIMS65 score (p = 0.30) and pRS score (p = 0.42). Viral hepatitis, intravenous hormone usage, low platelet count, and low albumin level were significant factors associated with UGIB.

Conclusions

The Glasgow Blatchford score (AUROC 0.868) was best at predicting the need for intervention or death. However, their ability to predict mortality was limited, with AUROC less than 0.8. Our study also identified four independent risk factors for renal transplant recipients with UGIB.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02426-3.

Comparison of three risk scores to predict outcomes in upper gastrointestinal bleeding; modifying Glasgow-Blatchford with albumin. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC. 2019;57:322-333. [PMID: 31268861 DOI: 10.2478/rjim-2019-0016]

INTRODUCTION

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is of great importance. In this way, we aimed to evaluate the performance of three well known scoring systems of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) and Full Rockall Score (FRS) in predicting adverse outcomes in patients with UGIB as well as their ability in identifying low risk patients for outpatient management. We also aimed to assess whether changing albumin cutoff in AIMS65 and addition of albumin to GBS add predictive value to these scores.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study on adult patients who were admitted to Razi hospital (Rasht, Iran) with diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding between March 21, 2013 and March 21, 2017. Patients who didn't undergo endoscopy or had incomplete medical data were excluded. Initially, we calculated three score systems of AIMS65, GBS and FRS for each patient by using initial Vital signs and lab data. Secondary, we modified AIMS65 and GBS by changing albumin threshold from <3.5 to <3.0 in AIMS65 and addition of albumin to GBS, respectively. Primary outcomes were defined as in hospital mortality, 30-day rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and endoscopic therapy. Secondary outcome was defined as composition of primary outcomes excluding need for blood transfusion. We used AUROC to assess predictive accuracy of risk scores in primary and secondary outcomes. For albumin-GBS model, the AUROC was only calculated for predicting mortality and secondary outcome. The negative predictive value for AIMS65, GBS and modified AIMS65 was then calculated.

RESULT

Of 563 patients, 3% died in hospital, 69.4% needed blood transfusion, 13.1% needed endoscopic therapy and 3% had 30-day rebleeding. The leading cause of UGIB was erosive disease. In predicting composite of adverse outcomes all scores had statistically significant accuracy with highest AUROC for albumin-GBS. However, in predicting in hospital mortality, only albumin-GBS, modified AIMS65 and AIMS65 had acceptable accuracy. Interestingly, albumin, alone, had higher predictive accuracy than other original risk scores. None of the four scores could predict 30-day rebleeding accurately; on the contrary, their accuracy in predicting need for blood transfusion was high enough. The negative predictive value for GBS was 96.6% in score of ≤2 and 85.7% and 90.2% in score of zero in AIMS65 and modified AIMS65, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Neither of risk scores was highly accurate as a prognostic factor in our population; however, modified AIMS65 and albumin-GBS may be optimal choice in evaluating risk of mortality and general assessment. In identifying patient for safe discharge, GBS ≤ 2 seemed to be advisable choice.

MAP(ASH): A new scoring system for the prediction of intervention and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Risk stratification for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended. However, scoring system accuracy is suboptimal, and score calculation can be complex. Our aim was to develop a new score, the MAP(ASH) score, with information available in the emergency room and to validate it.

METHODS

The score was built from a prospective database of patients with UGIB and validated in an international database of 3012 patients from six hospitals. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, endoscopic intervention, any intervention (red blood transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or death), and rebleeding. Accuracy to predict outcomes was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-seven patients were included in the development cohort. Impaired mental status, albumin < 2.5 g/dL, pulse > 100, American Society of Anesthesiologists score > 2, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and hemoglobin < 10 g/dL were included in the score. The model had a good predictive accuracy for intervention (AUROC = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.88) and fair for mortality (AUROC = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68-0.81). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AUROC was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.56-0.66) in the original cohort and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) in the validation cohort, showing a poor performance, similar to other scores. For rebleeding, the MAP(ASH) (AUROC 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69-0.77) was similar to Glasgow Blatchford score (AUROC = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.67-0.76) but superior to AIMS65 (AUROC = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.68).

CONCLUSION

MAP(ASH) is a simple pre-endoscopy risk score to predict intervention after UGIB, with fair discrimination at predicting mortality. Because of its applicability, it could be an option in clinical practice.

Clinical utility of pre-endoscopy risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Introduction: Acute upper-gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, with an incidence of 103-172 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom (UK) and mortality of 2% to 10%. Early and accurate prediction of the severity of an AUGIB episode may help guide management, including in or outpatient management, level of care required, and timing of endoscopy. This article aims to address the clinical utility of the various pre-endoscopic risk assessment tools used in AUGIB.Areas covered: The authors undertook a literature review of the current evidence on the pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores. Additional the authors discuss the recently published novel risk assessment scores.Expert opinion: The evidence shows that GBS is the most clinically useful risk assessment score in correctly identifying very low-risk patients suitable for outpatient management. At present, research is ongoing to assess machine learning in the assessment of patients presenting with AUGIB. More research is needed but it shows promise for the future.

Validity of the Pre-endoscopic Scoring Systems for the Prediction of the Failure of Endoscopic Hemostasis in Bleeding Gastroduodenal Peptic Ulcers

Objective Although several pre-endoscopic scoring systems have been used to predict the mortality or the need for intervention for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, their usefulness to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers has not yet been fully investigated. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), the clinical Rockall score (CRS), and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 226 consecutive emergency endoscopic cases with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers between April 2010 and September 2016. The study outcome was the failure of first endoscopic hemostasis. The GBS, CRS, and AIMS65 scores were assessed for their ability to predict the failure of endoscopic hemostasis using a receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results Eight cases (3.5%) failed to achieve first endoscopic hemostasis. Surgery was required in six cases, and interventional radiology was required in two cases. The GBS was superior to both the CRS and the AIMS65 score in predicting the failure of endoscopic hemostasis [area under the curve, 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.90), 0.65 (0.56-0.74) and 0.75 (0.56-0.95), respectively]. No failure of endoscopic hemostasis was noted in cases in which the patient scored less than GBS 10 and CRS 2. Conclusion The GBS was the most useful scoring system for the prediction of failure of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. The GBS was also useful in identifying the patients who did not require surgery or interventional radiology.

Arterial lactate does not predict outcome better than existing risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a frequent medical emergency and several scoring systems are developed to help risk-stratify patients. We aimed to investigate if elevated arterial lactate (AL) was associated with 30-day mortality, need for hospital-based intervention, or rebleeding. Furthermore, we compared the performance of AL with existing scoring systems and examined if incorporation of AL could improve their predictive ability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of 331 consecutive patients admitted with UGIB during a one-year period. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the association between AL and outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare AL with existing scoring systems and to test if incorporation of AL could significantly increase their performance.

RESULTS

AL was significantly associated with mortality (p = .001), need for hospital-based intervention (p = .005), and rebleeding (p = .031). In predicting mortality and rebleeding, AL performed equally to existing scoring systems, however, inferior to all, in predicting need for intervention. Two of the scoring systems were marginally improved in predicting mortality if AL was included.

CONCLUSIONS

AL is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with UGIB, but has only similar or inferior ability to predict relevant clinical outcomes compared to existing scoring systems. Although AL could enhance performance of two scorings systems in predicting mortality, it does not have an apparent clinical significance. Thus, our data does not support routine measurement of AL in patients with UGIB.

Lactate Parameters Predict Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The predictive role of lactate in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) has been suggested. This study evaluated several lactate parameters in terms of predicting outcomes of bleeding patients and sought to establish a new scoring model by combining lactate parameters and the AIMS65 score. A total of 114 patients with NVUGIB who underwent serum lactate level testing at least twice and endoscopic hemostasis within 24 hours after admission were retrospectively analyzed. The associations between five lactate parameters and clinical outcomes were evaluated and the predictive power of lactate parameter combined AIMS65s (L-AIMS65s) and AIMS56 scoring was compared. The most common cause of bleeding was gastric ulcer (48.2%). Lactate clearance rate (LCR) was associated with 30-day rebleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.931; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.872-0.994; P = 0.033). Initial lactate (OR, 1.313; 95% CI, 1.050-1.643; P = 0.017), maximal lactate (OR, 1.277; 95% CI, 1.037-1.573; P = 0.021), and average lactate (OR, 1.535; 95% CI, 1.137-2.072; P = 0.005) levels were associated with 30-day mortality. Initial lactate (OR, 1.213; 95% CI, 1.027-1.432; P = 0.023), maximal lactate (OR, 1.271; 95% CI, 1.074-1.504; P = 0.005), and average lactate (OR, 1.501; 95% CI, 1.150-1.959; P = 0.003) levels were associated with admission over 7 days. Although L-AIMS65s showed the highest area under the curve for prediction of each outcome, differences between L-AIMS65s and AIMS65 did not reach statistical significance. In conclusion, lactate parameters have a prognostic role in patients with NVUGIB. However, they do not increase the predictive power of AIMS65 when combined.

Management for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly patients: the experience of a tertiary university hospital

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is the main cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Endoscopic treatment and acid suppression with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are most important in the management of PUB and these treatments have reduced mortality. However, elderly patients sometimes have a poor prognostic outcome due to severe comorbidities.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on 504 cases with acute non-variceal UGIB who were examined in our hospital, in order to reveal the risk factor of a poor outcome in elderly patients.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-four cases needed hemostasis; 11 cases had unsuccessful endoscopic treatments; 31 cases had re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis. Forty-three cases died within 30 days after the initial urgent endoscopy, but only seven cases died from bleeding. Elderly patients aged over 65 years had more severe comorbidities, and were prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulation agents, more frequently, compared with non-elderly patients. The significant risk factor of needing hemostatic therapy was the taking of two or more NSAIDs, antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulation agents. The most important risk of a poor outcome in elderly patients was various kinds of severe comorbidities. And so, it is important to predict such an outcome in these cases. AIMS65 is a simple and relatively useful scoring system that predicts the risk of a poor outcome in UGIB. High-score patients via AIMS65 were associated with a high mortality rate because of death from comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

The elderly patients in whom were prescribed two or more NSAIDs, antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulation agents, should have UGIB prevented using a PPI. The most significant risk of a poor outcome in elderly patients was severe comorbidities. We recommend that elderly patients with UGIB should be estimated as having a poor outcome as soon as possible via the risk scoring system AIMS65.

Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performances of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), modified GBS (mGBS) and AIMS65 in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB).

METHODS

This study enrolled 320 consecutive patients with AUGIB. Patients at high and low risks of developing adverse clinical outcomes (rebleeding, the need of clinical intervention and death) were categorized according to the GBS, mGBS and AIMS65 scoring systems. The outcome of the patients were the occurrences of adverse clinical outcomes. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of three scoring systems were compared.

RESULTS

Irrespective of the systems used, the high-risk groups showed higher rates of rebleeding, intervention and death compared with the low-risk groups (P < 0.05). For the prediction of rebleeding, AIMS65 (AUROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.667-0.802) performed significantly better than GBS (AUROC 0.672, 95% CI 0.597-0.747; P < 0.01) and mGBS (AUROC 0.677, 95% CI 0.602-0.753; P < 0.01). For the prediction of interventions, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.769, 95% CI 0.668-0.870; mGBS: AUROC 0.745, 95% CI 0.643-0.847; AIMS65: AUROC 0.746, 95% CI 0.640-0.851). For the prediction of in-hospital mortality, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.796, 95% CI 0.694-0.898; mGBS: AUROC 0.803, 95% CI 0.703-0.904; AIMS65: AUROC 0.786, 95% CI 0.670-0.903).

CONCLUSIONS

The three scoring systems are reliable and accurate in predicting the rates of rebleeding, surgery and mortality in AUGIB. However, AIMS65 outperforms GBS and mGBS in predicting rebleeding.

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

OBJECTIVE

AIMS65 is a score designed to predict in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs of gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aims were to revalidate AIMS65 as predictor of inpatient mortality and to compare AIMS65's performance with that of Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) with regard to mortality, and the secondary outcomes of a composite endpoint of severity, transfusion requirements, rebleeding, delayed (6-month) mortality, and length of stay.

METHODS

The study included 309 patients. Clinical and biochemical data, transfusion requirements, endoscopic, surgical, or radiological treatments, and outcomes for 6 months after admission were collected. Clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, delayed mortality, rebleeding, composite endpoint, blood transfusions, and length of stay.

RESULTS

In receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses, AIMS65, GBS, and RS were similar when predicting inpatient mortality (0.76 vs. 0.78 vs. 0.78). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AIMS65 and GBS were identical (0.62 vs. 0.62). AIMS65 was useless when predicting rebleeding compared to GBS or RS (0.56 vs. 0.70 vs. 0.71). GBS was better at predicting the need for transfusions. No patient with AIMS65 = 0, GBS ≤ 6, or RS ≤ 4 died. Considering the composite endpoint, an AIMS65 of 0 did not exclude high risk patients, but a GBS ≤ 1 or RS ≤ 2 did. The three scores were similar in predicting prolonged in-hospital stay. Delayed mortality was better predicted by AIMS65.

CONCLUSION

AIMS65 is comparable to GBS and RS in essential endpoints such as inpatient mortality, the need for endoscopic intervention and length of stay. GBS is a better score predicting rebleeding and the need for transfusion, but AIMS65 shows a better performance predicting delayed mortality.

Initial Assessment and Resuscitation in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important cause of hospital admission with an associated mortality of 2-14%. Initial patient evaluation includes rapid hemodynamic assessment, large-bore intravenous catheter insertion and volume resuscitation. A hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is recommended, and packed red blood cell transfusion may be necessary to restore intravascular volume and improve tissue perfusion. Patients should be risk stratified into low- and high-risk categories, using validated prognostic scoring systems such as the Glasgow-Blatchford, AIMS65 or Rockall scores. Effective early management of acute, nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage is critical for improving patient outcomes.

AIMS65: A promising upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk score but further validation required

A novel upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk stratification score (AIMS65) has recently been developed and validated. It has advantages over existing risk scores including being easy to remember and lack of subjectivity in calculation. We comment on a recent study that has cast doubt on the applicability of AIMS65 in the peptic ulcer disease population. Although promising, further studies are required to evaluate the validity of AIMS65 in various populations.

Emergency endoscopy for acute gastrointestinal bleeding: prognostic value of endoscopic hemostasis and the AIMS65 score in Japanese patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To evaluate the prognostic factors, including risk scores (Glasgow-Blatchford score and AIMS65) in patients with acute upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who had undergone emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy for suspected gastrointestinal bleeding during the past 5 years were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 232 endoscopies (130 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 102 colonoscopies) for 192 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 66 years, and 64% of patients were males. Endoscopy identified causes for bleeding in 173 patients (post-endoscopic interventions for neoplastic lesions in 36 cases, colonic diverticula in 34, gastroduodenal ulcers in 29, gastric erosions in 15, vascular ectasia in 14, post-biopsy bleeding in 13, malignant tumors in 10, inflammatory conditions in nine, esophagogastric varices in five, Mallory-Weiss tears in four, nasalbleeding in three, and injury by swallowed blister pack in one), whereas the source of bleeding remained obscure in 19 patients. Blood transfusion was given in 97 patients (51%), and 97 (51%) underwent endoscopic hemostasis. During the follow-up period, 49 patients (26%) experienced rebleeding, seven of whom were treated by interventional radiology. Thirty-nine patients (20%) died as a result of various diseases. The probabilities of overall survival (OS) after 3 and 5 years were 71% and 67%, respectively. Cox multivariate analysis revealed blood transfusion, co-existing malignancy, absence of endoscopic hemostasis, and high AIMS65 score to be independent prognostic factors for poor OS.

CONCLUSION

The AIMS65 score is useful for predicting the prognosis of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding.