prognosis of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). Methods A total of 130 patients with AUGIB in our hospital were enrolled in this study from August 2014 to August 2016 . Three kinds of scoring systems including Rockall, Blatchford and AIMS65 were used to evaluate the risk classification of the patients. Patients were followed up for 2 months. The incidence rates of re-bleeding and death within 2 months after admission were observed. Data of prognosis in patients with AUGIB were compared between the three scoring systems in the prognosis of patients with AUGIB, including the risk classification and the prediction accuracy of re-bleeding and death. Results There were no significant differences in the re-bleeding rate and fatality rate between the groups divided by Rockall and Blatchford scoring systems ( P>0.05). According to the grouping results of AIMS65 scoring system, the re-bleeding rate of low-risk group was lower than that in high risk group (1.45%vs. 13.11%, P=0.01), but there was no significant difference in fatality rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The values of area under the curve (AUC) of predicting re-bleeding rates by using Rockall, Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems were 0.6258, 0.6910, and 0.7241, and the values of AUC of predicting fatality rates were 0.7031, 0.7969, and 0.7031 by using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. There were no significant differences between them (P>0.05). The values of AUC of predicting re-bleeding rates by using the risk grading calculation by Rockall, Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems were 0.6189, 0.6139 and 0.7254 (P>0.05). But the values of AUC of predicting fatality rates were 0.6211, 0.6641 and 0.7695 (P<0.01). Conclusion The operation method of AIMS65 scoring system is simple and convenient, which is applicable to a wide range of patients with AUGIB. In the prediction of re-bleeding and mortality, AIMS65 scoring system has high accuracy and stability, which is worthy of promoting in clinical application.%目的 比较Rockall、Blatchford和AIMS65这3种评分系统对急性上消化道出血(AUGIB)预后的预测价值.方法 选取我院2014年8月—2016年8月收治的130例AUGIB患者为研究对象,采用Rockall、Blatchford和AIMS65这3种评分系统分别对患者危险程度进行评分,观察患者入院确诊后2个月内的再出血及死亡情况.比较3种评分系统对AUGIB患者的危险程度分级及再出血、死亡的预测价值.结果 根据Rockall评分系统和Blatchford评分系统分组的各危险组之间再出血率及病死率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);AIMS65评分系统分组的低危组再出血率低于高危组(1.45%vs.13.11%,P<0.05),而病死率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).以Rockall评分系统、Blatchford评分系统和AIMS65评分系统评分为检验变量进行受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)分析,结果显示3种系统预测再出血率的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)依次为0.6258、0.6910和0.7241,预测病死率的AUC依次为0.7031、0.7969和0.7031,但差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).以3种评分系统评估的危险程度分级为检验变量进行ROC分析,结果显示3种系统预测再出血率的AUC依次为0.6189、0.6139和0.7254(χ2=1.99,P>0.05);预测病死率的AUC依次为0.6211、0.6641和0.7695(χ2=29.67,P<0.01).结论 AIMS65评分系统操作简单方便,适用人群范围广.在对再出血、死亡等进行预测时,具有较高的预测精准度和稳定性,值得在临床推广应用.
展开▼
