...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Gastroenterology >AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
【24h】

AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

机译:AIMS65评分系统与Glasgow-Blatchford评分或Rockall评分相当,可预测非静脉曲张性上消化道出血的临床结局

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Risk stratification for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (NVUGI) bleeding is crucial for successful prognosis and treatment. Recently, the AIMS65 score has been used to predict mortality risk and rebleeding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in Korea. We retrospectively studied 512 patients with NVUGI bleeding who were treated at a university hospital between 2013 and 2016. The AIMS65, GBS, Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score were used to stratify patients based on their bleeding risk. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite clinical outcomes of mortality, rebleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Each scoring system was compared using the receiver-operating curve (ROC). A total of 17 patients (3.3%) died and rebleeding developed in 65 patients (12.7%). Eighty-six patients (16.8%) required ICU admission. The AIMS65 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.88)) seemed to be superior to the GBS (AUC 0.72, 0.68–0.76), the Rockall score (AUC 0.75, 0.71–0.79), or the pre-endoscopic Rockall score (AUC 0.74, 0.70–0.78) in predicting in-hospital mortality, but there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups (P?=?0.07). The AUC value of the AIMS65 was not significantly different from the other scoring systems in prediction of rebleeding, endoscopic intervention, or ICU admission. The AIMS65 score in NVUGI bleeding patients was comparable to the GBS or Rockall scoring systems when predicting the mortality, rebleeding, or ICU admission. Because AIMS65 is a much easier, readily calculated scoring system compared to the others, we would recommend using the AIMS65 in daily practice.
机译:非静脉曲张上消化道(NVUGI)出血患者的风险分层对于成功预后和治疗至关重要。最近,AIMS65分数已用于预测死亡风险和再出血。这项研究的目的是比较韩国的AIMS65评分与格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分(GBS),Rockall评分和内镜前Rockall评分的表现。我们回顾性研究了2013年至2016年在大学医院接受治疗的512例NVUGI出血患者。根据出血风险,使用AIMS65,GBS,Rockall评分和内镜前Rockall评分对患者进行分层。主要结局是院内死亡率。次要结果是死亡率,再出血和重症监护病房(ICU)入院的综合临床结果。使用接收器操作曲线(ROC)比较每个评分系统。共有17位患者(3.3%)死亡,并且65位患者(12.7%)出现了再出血。八十六名患者(16.8%)需要入住ICU。 AIMS65(曲线下面积(AUC)0.84,95%置信区间0.81–0.88)似乎优于GBS(AUC 0.72、0.68–0.76),Rockall得分(AUC 0.75、0.71-0.79),或内镜检查前的Rockall评分(AUC 0.74,0.70–0.78)预测院内死亡率,但两组之间无统计学意义的显着性差异(P?=?0.07)。 AIMS65的AUC值在预测出血,内镜干预或ICU入院方面与其他评分系统没有显着差异。在预测死亡率,出血或重症监护病房时,NVUGI出血患者的AIMS65评分与GBS或Rockall评分系统相当。由于与其他系统相比,AIMS65是一种更轻松,易于计算的评分系统,因此我们建议在日常实践中使用AIMS65。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号