Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 54(2); 2021 > Article
Original Article 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
Arunchai Chang1orcid, Chokethawee Ouejiaraphant2orcid, Keerati Akarapatima1orcid, Attapon Rattanasupa1orcid, Varayu Prachayakul3,orcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(2):211-221.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2020.068
Published online: July 16, 2020

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hatyai Hospital, Songkhla, Thailand

2Department of Internal Medicine, Hatyai Hospital, Songkhla, Thailand

3Siriraj Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Correspondence: Varayu Prachayakul Siriraj Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, 2 Tanon Wang Lang, Siriraj, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok 10700, Thailand Tel: +66-8-186-54646, Fax: +66-2-411-5013, E-mail: kaiyjr@gmail.com
• Received: March 4, 2020   • Revised: April 27, 2020   • Accepted: May 7, 2020

Copyright © 2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 8,285 Views
  • 372 Download
  • 29 Web of Science
  • 28 Crossref
  • 27 Scopus
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

See letter "The Value of Risk Scores to Predict Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding" in Volume 54 on page 145.
  • 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 results between 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 operating characteristic curve analysis was performed for all outcomes for comparison. The associations of all three scores with mortality were evaluated 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 GBS was not associated (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890–1.163) with mortality risk in patients with UGIB. However, all three scores accurately predicted all other outcomes (all p<0.05) except rebleeding (p>0.05). Only AIMS65 precisely predicted mortality, the need for blood transfusion 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 need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. No scoring system could satisfactorily predict rebleeding in all patients with UGIB.
  • Keywords: AIMS65 score; Glasgow-Blatchford score; Outcome; Rockall score; Upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common cause of hospital admission worldwide, and has a mortality rate of between 2% and 15% [1]. Recent guidelines have recommended stratifying patients with UGIB into higher and lower risk categories for treatment decisions and prognostication [1-3]. The widely used scoring systems include the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and AIMS65 score (AIMS65) (Table 1); however, their role in clinical practice remains uncertain [4-6]. Compared with other existing scores, AIMS65 is simple, easy to remember, can be calculated with nonweighted elements, and can be routinely evaluated in the emergency department [7].
These scores have been validated and compared, in terms of their accuracy in predicting various outcomes among patients presenting with UGIB, in numerous studies [7-11]. Most of the previous studies included both patients with nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) and patients with variceal UGIB (VUGIB), whereas some studies excluded patients with VUGIB [12-14]. Many differences exist between patients with NVUGIB and those with VUGIB, including management and natural history, resulting in different performances in the prediction of clinical endpoints between the two patient groups. Limited data are available on the efficacy of AIMS65, RS, and GBS in predicting outcomes in patients with NVUGIB compared with patients with VUGIB.
The purpose of the present study was to compare the performance of AIMS65, RS, and GBS in patients presenting with UGIB, including those with any cause of UGIB (overall UGIB [OUGIB]) and subgroups of patients with NVUGIB and VUGIB.
Study design and population
This was a prospective observational study conducted at Hatyai Hospital (regional referral center in southern Thailand) between March 2016 and December 2017. Patients were included if they were >18 years old and presented to the hospital with evidence of UGIB, defined as hematemesis, coffee-ground vomiting, melena, or hematochezia with vital sign instability. Patients were excluded if they (1) had a history of UGIB in the previous 3 months, (2) had a final diagnosis of non-UGIB after the diagnostic workup, (3) had undergone endoscopy at another institution before admission, (4) had incomplete data required for the calculation of either of the three scores, and (5) refused undergoing endoscopic examination or providing informed consent for the study.
According to the protocol of the study hospital, all patients with UGIB visiting the emergency or outpatient department were initially assessed and hemodynamically stabilized. All patients were treated as inpatient cases and subsequently underwent endoscopy during the study period. The clinical management, including the time of endoscopy and use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) before endoscopy, was judged by each gastroenterologist depending on the patient’s clinical status. In addition, for patients who had a risk for variceal bleeding, intravenous vasopressors and antibiotics were administered, and discontinued if variceal bleeding was excluded. During endoscopy, the presence of high-risk stigmata was considered an indication for endoscopic hemostasis. At our institution, the endoscopic practice for patients with high-risk stigmata of nonvariceal bleeding was injection therapy with diluted adrenaline around the culprit lesion, combined with thermal contact or mechanical clips. There was no policy of adrenaline application alone. In cases of esophageal or gastric variceal bleeding, band ligation or injection of cyanoacrylate was performed, respectively [15,16]. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stents were not available at our center. Postendoscopic high-dose PPIs administered via intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion were given in cases of highrisk stigmata of nonvariceal bleeding or other selected cases considered by each individual endoscopist depending on clinical judgment [1-3]. Red blood cell transfusion was considered at a hemoglobin threshold of 7–8 g/dL or when there were signs of hemodynamic instability [16,17]. Consultation for surgery or embolization was considered for patients who failed endoscopic intervention or developed rebleeding despite two adequate endoscopic intervention attemps [1].
Data collection
For each patient, the following data were collected: age, sex, clinical presentation, comorbidities, current medications, and laboratory results on admission. In addition, the time to endoscopy, endoscopic findings, type of endoscopic intervention, number of packed red blood cell units received, surgical and radiologic intervention, and subsequent clinical outcomes (including rebleeding and in-hospital death) were assessed.
Outcomes and definition
The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were (1) the need for blood transfusion; (2) endoscopic intervention requirement; (3) in-hospital rebleeding; and (4) the composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, need for blood transfusion, overall interventions (including endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical interventions), and rebleeding. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hatyai Hospital (protocol number 80/2015), and this trial was registered in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (number: TCTR20190222006).
The patients were considered to have altered mental status if the Glasgow Coma Scale score was <14, or if they were defined as experiencing “disorientation”, “lethargy”, “stupor”, or “coma”. High-risk stigmata of nonvariceal bleeding was characterized as adherent clots or nonbleeding or bleeding visible vessels. Rebleeding was defined as an objective evidence of a new episode of UGIB after the initial bleeding episode was controlled or spontaneously resolved, which was associated with hemodynamic instability or a >2 g/dL decrease in hemoglobin level.
Statistical analysis
Categorical variables are summarized using frequency statistics (e.g., frequencies, percentage), and were compared between groups using Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation, median and range) are used for continuous variables, which were compared using Student’s t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We examined the relationship between outcome events and each score separately, using logistic regression analysis. After univariate analysis was performed, age, sex, and other variables with p-values <0.1 were included in the multivariate regression model. Next, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to assess the relationship between each score and all outcomes. The area under the ROC curves (AUROCs) were then assessed with exact binomial confidence intervals (CIs). AUROCs were tested for equality using the Delong χ2 test. Analyses were performed using the statistical program Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp LLC; College Station, TX, USA). A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Study sample calculation
The study sample size was calculated according to the studies by Hyett et al. and Bryant et al. [18,19] Hyett et al. revealed that the in-hospital mortality rate was 6.5% and the AUROCs of AIMS65 and GBS for predicting in-hospital mortality were 0.93 and 0.68, respectively [18]. Bryant et al. reported that the AUROCs of RS and GBS for predicting in-hospital mortality were 0.71 and 0.72, respectively [19]. For the study sample size calculation, we predicted an in-hospital mortality rate of 6.5%, AIMS65 AUROC of 0.9, GBS and RS AUROC of 0.7, and a moderate correlation between AIMS65 and the other scores (ρ=0.4). To achieve a power of 90% for detecting a 0.2 difference in AUROC using a two-sided test with α=0.05, the sample size was determined to be 310. Assuming a 10% loss because of dropouts, the sample size was estimated to be 341 participants.
Selected patient characteristics
Among 352 patients, 337 who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study, with 247 men and an average age of 61.1±16.5 years. Fifteen patients were excluded because nine patients underwent endoscopy before admission, three patients had a history of UGIB in the previous 3 months, two patients were diagnosed with midgastrointestinal bleeding, and one patient had incomplete information. On the basis of endoscopy results, 267 patients (79.2%) had NVUGIB and 70 patients (20.8%) had VUGIB. The causes of UGIB in patients with NVUGIB were peptic ulcer disease in 153 patients (45.4%), including 81 with gastric ulcers, 53 with duodenal ulcers, and 19 with both gastric and duodenal ulcers; gastritis/duodenitis in 77 patients (22.8%); Mallory–Weiss tears in 28 patients (8.3%); reflux esophagitis in 30 patients (8.9%); portal hypertensive gastropathy in 14 patients (4.2%); and ulcerated tumor in 11 patients (3.3%). The endoscopic findings of patients with VUGIB included esophageal varices in 62 (88.6%) and gastric varices with or without esophageal varices in 8 (11.4%). Regardless of the cause of UGIB, red blood cell transfusion and endoscopic intervention were performed in 183 patients (54.3%) and 110 patients (32.6%), respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.2%, and bleeding recurred in 10 patients (3.0%). Tables 2 and 3 show the demographic data and clinical outcomes of all participants and the comparisons between patients with NVUGIB and those with VUGIB, respectively. Significantly different parameters and clinical outcomes were observed between the two groups. The mean age, hypertension status, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug usage, hemoglobin, platelet count, serum albumin, serum blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine of patients with NVUGIB were greater than those of patients with VUGIB. Conversely, patients with VUGIB were more likely to have liver disease, cancer, fresh blood via the nasogastric tube, hemodynamic instability on initial assessment, and a higher international normalized ratio (INR) than those with NVUGIB. In terms of scoring systems, patients with VUGIB had higher AIMS65 and GBS than those with NVUGIB; however, there was no significant difference in RS. The in-hospital mortality, blood transfusion requirement, and endoscopic intervention rates were significantly higher in patients with VUGIB than in those with NVUGIB. No significant difference was found in terms of rebleeding or radiologic/surgical intervention.
Accuracy of scoring systems and comparison between patients with NVUGIB and those with VUGIB

Mortality

AIMS65, GBS and RS were accurate in predicting mortality in patients with OUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.747, GBS =0.671, RS =0.669, all p <0.05) and NVUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65=0.706, GBS=0.699, RS=0.750, all p<0.05). When comparing the AUROCs between the scoring systems, the three scores resulted in similar mortality predictions in both patients with OUGIB and patients with NVUGIB (all p>0.05). In contrast to the finding on patients with NVUGIB, only AIMS65 could precisely predict mortality in patients with VUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65=0.741, p=0.020 vs. GBS=0.589, p=0.390 vs. RS=0.611, p=0.284) (Fig. 1).

Need for blood transfusion

All studied scores could predict the need for blood transfusion in patients with OUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.693, GBS =0.766, RS =0.624, all p<0.001) and NVUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65=0.693, GBS=0.789, RS=0.659, all p<0.001) (Fig. 2A). In patients with OUGIB, the AUROC for GBS and AIMS65 revealed similar accuracies (AUROC; GBS=0.766 vs. AIMS65 =0.693, p=0.766), which were significantly higher than that associated with RS (AUROC =0.624, all p<0.05). However, in patients with NVUGIB, the AUROC of GBS for predicting the need for blood transfusion was the highest, and was significantly higher than that of either AIMS65 or RS (all p<0.001). In contrast, only AIMS65 was effective in predicting the need for blood transfusion in patients with VUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65=0.658, p=0.035 vs. GBS=0.645, p=0.052 vs. RS=0.523, p=0.757).

Endoscopic intervention requirement

AIMS65, GBS, and RS revealed significant accuracy in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention in patients with OUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.619 vs. GBS =0.645 vs. RS =0.600, all p <0.05) and NVUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.604 vs. GBS =0.667 vs. RS =0.707, all p<0.05). There was no significant difference in predicting endoscopic intervention requirements in patients with OUGIB (all p>0.05). However, among patients with NVUGIB, RS showed the highest AUROC, which was significantly higher than that of AIMS65 (p=0.017) and was not significantly different from that of GBS (p=0.307). However, none of the scoring systems exhibited significant accuracy in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention in the VUGIB group (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.542 vs. GBS =0.523 vs. RS =0.420, all p >0.05) (Fig. 2B).

Rebleeding

None of the scoring systems could predict rebleeding in the OUGIB group (AUROC; AIMS65=0.614 vs. GBS=0.617 vs. RS =0.567, all p >0.05) or in the NVUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.657 vs. GBS =0.682 vs. RS =0.596, all p >0.05) and VUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.275 vs. GBS =0.094 vs. RS=0.319, all p>0.05) subgroups (Fig. 2C).

Composite endpoint

Fig. 2D. displays the ROC and AUROCs of AIMS65, GBS, and RS for predicting the composite endpoint. All three scores showed significant predictive accuracy for predicting the composite endpoint among patients with OUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.734 vs. GBS =0.800 vs. RS =0.660, all p<0.001) and NVUGIB (AUROC; AIMS65 =0.714 vs. GBS =0.810 vs. RS =0.705, all p<0.001). In patients with OUGIB, GBS performed best in detecting the composite endpoint, demonstrating better ability than AIMS65 (AUROC; 0.800 vs. 0.734, p=0.017) and RS (AUROC; 0.800 vs. 0.660, p<0.001). Furthermore, GBS was the most precise in predicting the composite endpoint, significantly outperforming both AIMS65 (AUROC; 0.810 vs. 0.714, p =0.001) and RS (AUROC; 0.810 vs. 0.705, p=0.002) in the subgroup of patients with NVUGIB. However, in patients with VUGIB, only AIMS65 was accurate in predicting the composite endpoint (AUROC; AIMS65=0.804, p=0.005 vs. GBS=0.706, p=0.060 vs. RS=0.476, p=0.825).
Association of scoring systems with mortality risk, and optimal cutoff values
The association of the scoring systems with the risk of mortality in patients with OUGIB is summarized in Table 4. After adjustment for confounding factors, AIMS65 was positively associated with the risk of death (odds ratio [OR], 1.735; 95% CI, 1.148–2.620), whereas RS was marginally associated with the mortality risk (OR, 1.225; 95% CI, 0.973–1.543). No significant association was observed between GBS and the risk of death (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890–1.163).
The cutoff values that maximized the sum of the sensitivity and specificity of each score for predicting mortality were separately calculated (Table 5). The optimal cutoffs for AIMS65, GBS, and RS were 3, 12, and 6, respectively.
Current guidelines recommend the use of risk stratification to determine priorities and select high-risk patients who should be treated with aggressive resuscitation and appropriate intervention, in order to minimize morbidity and mortality [1,2]. Previous studies supported the accuracies of AIMS65, GBS, and RS in predicting outcomes or disease-related interventions [7,11,20]. The main results of the current study were as follows: first, AIMS65 was found to be precise, and was not significantly different from GBS and RS in terms of the prediction of in-hospital mortality in unselected patients with UGIB. Second, all three scores were accurate tools for predicting in-hospital mortality, the need for blood transfusion, endoscopic intervention requirement, and the composite endpoint among patients with NVUGIB but not for predicting rebleeding. GBS had the best accuracy for predicting the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint, whereas RS performed better in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention than AIMS65 but did not differ from GBS. In contrast to patients with NVUGIB, in patients with VUGIB, AIMS65 was the only score that was a precise risk assessment tool for predicting mortality, the need for blood transfusion, and the composite endpoint during admission. None of the studied scores could predict endoscopic intervention requirement or rebleeding in this population. Third, the in-hospital mortality risk among patients with OUGIB was positively associated with AIMS65, and was possible for RS but not for GBS.
This comparative study supports the idea that GBS is the most appropriate scoring system for both overall patients with UGIB and the subgroup of patients with NVUGIB. This finding was consistent with that of previous studies [8,21,22]. However, the currently available scoring systems have been validated, including among patients with UGIB, mostly by focusing on patients with NVUGIB. The performance of these scores in predicting outcomes in patients with cirrhosis presenting with VUGIB may be limited. Studies in Western countries have reported that the most common cause of UGIB is nonvariceal bleeding (86%–93%) [6,8,23]. In Asia, however, the prevalence of variceal bleeding is higher, accounting for approximately 16%–40% of UGIB cases [13,24]. In our study, subgroup analysis of patients with VUGIB demonstrated that only AIMS65 was precise in predicting mortality, the need of blood transfusion, and the composite endpoint. This result confirmed the finding of previous studies. Reed et al. reported that both GBS and RS have a poor ability to predict clinical outcomes in individuals with VUGIB [23], and Thanapirom et al. reported that, in contrast to the finding in patients with NVUGIB, GBS and RS were not precise in predicting outcomes in patients with VUGIB [25]. There are many possible reasons for this finding. Thanapirom et al. postulated that the lack of a known history of liver disease might lower GBS and RS at the time of presentation [25]. The data of this study indicate that 30% of patients in the VUGIB group did not have a previous diagnosis of cirrhosis. Second, the endoscopic finding of high-risk varices has not been described as a component of GBS or RS. Finally, the NVUGIB group included a significant proportion of patients with a low risk for adverse events [26]. According to our data, patients with NVUGIB received clinical intervention and died significantly less often than patients with VUGIB. In contrast to the finding associated with NVUGIB, the expected sensitivity and specificity of scoring systems for patients with VUGIB are low in the evaluation of clinical outcomes, resulting in lower AUROCs. Furthermore, variceal bleeding is mostly associated with massive hemorrhage, and prognosis is closely correlated with the severity of liver failure [24]. Serum albumin levels and INR are components of AIMS65 and reflect the baseline liver function of patients who had chronic liver disease at the time of initial assessment [15]. Hence, AIMS65 showed significant accuracy in predicting outcomes in patients with VUGIB. Although the utility of AIMS65 in predicting in-hospital morality has been proven in previous studies [27,28], our study additionally demonstrated that AIMS65 predicts other clinical outcomes (including the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint). These findings may be beneficial in supporting and providing appropriate management and medical resources for patients with VUGIB.
With respect to the prediction of rebleeding, none of the studied scores showed significant predictive accuracy in overall patients with UGIB or in the subgroup of patients with NVUGIB or VUGIB. Our data, consistent with several previous studies, support the assumption that the clinical usefulness of these scoring systems in terms of this outcome is low [24,29,30]. It would be more important to develop a new precise score for predicting rebleeding in the future.
Our study demonstrated that only AIMS65 and possibly RS could be used for predicting mortality in patients with UGIB, whereas GBS could not. This finding could be explained by the fact that each score was developed independently with a different study population and purpose. AIMS65 and RS were designed to predict the risk for death, whereas GBS was designed to identify low-risk patients who could be safely treated as outpatients. Nakamura et al. [31] reported that AIMS65, but not GBS, was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in both patients with UGIB and those with lower gastrointestinal bleeding. However, a recent study by Gu et al. compared the performance of AIMS65, GBS, and RS in 799 patients with UGIB, including 15.6% with VUGIB [10]. The authors found the benefit of all three scores for assessing the risk of in-hospital death in patients with UGIB [10]. Of note, there were some differences between the studies, including the mortality rate and proportion of variceal bleeding, which may explain the inconsistency in the results. We recommend testing the association of scoring systems with the risk of in-hospital mortality in terms of larger study groups and/or different settings.
Previous studies revealed the different cutoff values for identifying a high risk of death in patients with UGIB [7,10,11,20]. The optimal cutoff values in our study for predicting mortality were 3, 12, and 6 for AIMS65, GBS, and RS, respectively. The cutoff value could be affected by differences in the study population, ethnicity and geographical area, regional medical resources, and the aim of the cutoff value. Gu et al. postulated that the optimal cutoff of each scoring system should be specifically chosen depending on the population to maximize the ability to predict prognosis in patients [10].
Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, this study was conducted at a single center in a regional referral hospital; hence, our results cannot be applied generally. Second, this study was powered to detect the expected difference for the primary outcome and not for the secondary outcomes. Third, the decisions with respect to any clinical interventions were made based on clinical judgment by individual gastroenterologists, which might have caused variability.
In conclusion, AIMS65 is precise and not significantly different from GBS and RS in predicting in-hospital mortality in overall patients with UGIB, regardless of a variceal or nonvariceal bleeding status. In patients with NVUGIB, all three scores were precise tools for predicting mortality, the need for blood transfusion, endoscopic requirement, and the composite endpoint. In contrast to the finding in patients with NVUGIB, only AIMS65 showed significant predictive accuracy in predicting mortality, need for blood transfusion, and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. However, all three scoring systems cannot satisfactorily predict the rebleeding rate in overall patients with UGIB or the subgroups of patients with NVUGIB and VUGIB.
Fig. 1.
A comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting in-hospital mortality in the overall upper gastrointestinal bleeding (OUGIB) patients and patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB). CI, confidence interval; N/A, not available.
ce-2020-068f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
A comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting (A) the need for blood transfusion; (B) endoscopic intervention requirement; (C) rebleeding; and (D) the composite endpoint of inpatient mortality, need for blood transfusion, overall interventions, and rebleeding in the overall upper gastrointestinal bleeding (OUGIB) patients and patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) and variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB). CI, confidence interval; N/A, not available.
ce-2020-068f2.jpg
Table 1.
Scoring Systems
Scoring system Admission clinical factor Parameter Score
AIMS65 score Albumin <3.0 mg/dL 1
INR >1.5 1
Mental status Altered 1
SBP, mm Hg ≤90 1
Age, yr ≥65 1
Rockall score Age, yr <60 0
60–79 1
≥80 2
Shock Heart rate >100 bpm 1
SBP <100 mm Hg 2
Comorbidity No major 0
CHF, IHD, or major comorbidity 2
Renal failure, liver failure, metastatic malignancy 3
Endoscopic finding Mallory–Weiss tear or no lesion and no stigmata 0
All other diagnoses 1
GI malignancy 2
Stigmata of recent bleeding No stigmata or pigmented spot on ulcer 0
Blood in upper GI tract, adherent clot, visible vessel, bleeding 2
Glasgow-Blatchford score BUN, mg/dL ≥18.2 to <22.4 2
≥22.4 to <28 3
≥28 to <70 4
≥70 6
Hemoglobin level, g/dL Male ≥12.0 to <13.0 1
  ≥10.0 to <12.0 3
  <10.0 6
Female ≥10.0 to <12.0 1
   <10.0 6
SBP, mm Hg ≥100 to <109 1
≥90 to <100 2
<90 3
Other markers Heart rate >100 bpm 1
Presented with melena 1
Presented with syncope 2
Hepatic disease 2
Cardiac failure 2

BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CHF, congestive heart failure; GI, gastrointestinal; IHD, ischemic heart disease; INR, international normalized ratio; SBP, systolic blood pressure.

Table 2.
Overall Baseline Characteristics and Comparison between Patients with Nonvariceal and Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Factor Overall UGIB (n=337) NVUGIB (n=267) VUGIB (n=70) p-value
Male sex 247 (73.3%) 192 (71.9%) 55 (78.6%) 0.262
Age (yr), mean±SD 61.1±16.5 62.3±17.2 56.1±12.7 0.001
Body mass index (kg/m2), mean±SD 23.2±4.6 23.2±4.7 23.0±4.1 0.771
Fresh blood via nasogastric tube 73 (21.7%) 42 (15.2%) 31 (51.7%) <0.001
Shock (hemodynamic instability) 45 (13.6%) 29 (10.9%) 16 (22.9%) 0.009
Syncope 109 (32.3%) 83 (32.1%) 26 (37.1%) 0.335
History of UGIB 6 (1.8%) 5 (1.9%) 1 (1.4%) 1.000
Mental status change 8 (2.4%) 6 (2.2%) 2 (2.9%) 0.673
Comorbidity
 None 175 (51.9%) 132 (49.4%) 30 (42.9%) 0.327
 Hypertension 106 (31.5%) 96 (36.0%) 10 (14.3%) 0.001
 Dyslipidemia 33 (9.8%) 29 (10.9%) 4 (5.7%) 0.197
 Ischemic heart disease 7 (2.1%) 7 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0.352
 Renal failure 25 (7.4%) 22 (8.2%) 3 (4.3%) 0.261
 Cerebrovascular disease 23 (6.8%) 22 (8.2%) 1 (1.4%) 0.058
 Any malignancies 27 (8%) 14 (5.2%) 13 (18.6%) <0.001
 Liver disease 67 (19.9%) 18 (6.7%) 49 (70.0%) <0.001
 Diabetes mellitus 73 (21.6%) 58 (21.7%) 15 (21.43%) 0.530
 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 9 (2.7%) 9 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0.213
Medication
 Aspirin and/or clopidogrel 22 (6.5%) 21 (7.9%) 1 (1.4%) 0.057
 Warfarin 7 (2.1%) 7 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0.352
 Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug 37 (11.0%) 35 (13.1%) 2 (2.9%) 0.015
 Corticosteroid 2 (0.6%) 2 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1.000
 Proton pump inhibitor 15 (4.5%) 12 (4.5%) 3 (4.3%) 1.000
Laboratory
 Hemoglobin 8.9±3.3 9.1±3.4 8.2±2.3 0.007
 Platelet count (×103/µL), median with IQR 228 (162,295) 221 (158,294) 90 (62,124) <0.001
 Albumin (mg/dL), mean±SD 3.18±0.76 3.30±0.74 2.69±0.64 <0.001
 INR, median with IQR 1.17 (1.06, 1.39) 1.12 (1.05, 1.27) 1.48 (1.32, 1.74) <0.001
 BUN (mg/dL), median with IQR 29.0 (16.0, 49.0) 32.0 (17, 52) 24.0 (15, 38) 0.028
 Serum creatinine (mg/dL), median with IQR 1.04 (0.79, 1.41) 1.04 (0.82, 1.43) 0.82 (0.63, 1.22) <0.001
Endoscopy in 24 hr 214 (63.5%) 174 (65.2%) 40 (57.1%) 0.214
AIMS65 score, median with IQR 1 (0, 2) 1 (0, 2) 2 (1, 3) <0.001
Rockall score, median with IQR 3 (2, 4) 3 (2, 4) 2.5 (2, 4) 0.214
Glasgow-Blatchford score, median with IQR 10 (6, 13) 10 (5, 12) 11 (8, 13) 0.009

BUN, blood urea nitrogen; INR, international normalized ratio; IQR, interquartile range; NVUGIB, nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; SD, standard deviation; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; VUGIB, variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Table 3.
Overall Clinical Outcome and Comparison between Patients with Nonvariceal and Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Outcome Overall UGIB (n=337) NVUGIB (n=267) VUGIB (n=70) p-value
In-hospital mortality 21 (6.2%) 12 (4.5%) 9 (12.9%) 0.022
Rebleeding 10 (3.0%) 9 (3.4%) 1 (1.4%) 0.694
Blood transfusion 183 (54.3%) 135 (50.6%) 48 (68.6%) 0.007
Endoscopic intervention 110 (32.6%) 63 (23.6%) 47 (67.1%) <0.001
Surgical and/or radiologic intervention 4 (1.2%) 4 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0.584

NVUGIB, nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; VUGIB, variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Table 4.
The Association of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Rockall Score with Risk of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Regardless of the Cause of Upper Gastroesophageal Bleeding
Patient population Scoring system Mortality n (%) Score values (median with IQR) Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI) p-value Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) p-value
Overall UGIB (n=337) AIMS65 score No 316 (93.8) 1 (0 to 2) 1 1
Yes 21 (6.2) 3 (2 to 4) 1.990 (1.444–2.740) <0.001 1.735 (1.148–2.620)a) 0.009
Glasgow-Blatchford score No 316 (93.8) 10 (6 to 12) 1 1
Yes 21 (6.2) 13 (9 to 15) 1.145 (1.024–1.279) 0.017 1.017 (0.890–1.163)b) 0.801
Rockall score No 316 (93.8) 3 (2 to 4) 1 1
Yes 21 (6.2) 4 (3 to 7) 1.448 (1.191–1.760) <0.001 1.225 (0.973–1.543)c) 0.084

CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

a)AIMS65 score: adjusted for gender, malignancy, hemoglobin, platelet count, creatinine.

b)Glasgow-Blatchford score: adjusted for gender, age, malignancy, platelet count, albumin, international normalized ratio.

c)Rockall score: adjusted for gender, malignancy, hemoglobin, platelet count, albumin, international normalized ratio, creatinine.

Table 5.
Comparison of AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Rockall Score with Estimated Optimal Cutoff Values for In-Hospital Death
Score Cutoff value Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Total (sensitivity + specificity) PPV (%) NPV (%)
AIMS65 score 2 76.2 61.4 137.6 11.6 97.5
3 57.1 82.3 139.4 17.6 96.7
4 33.3 92.4 125.7 22.6 95.4
Glasgow-Blatchford score 11 66.7 53.8 120.5 8.8 96.0
12 61.9 96.2 158.1 10.5 96.2
13 52.4 76.3 128.7 12.8 96.0
Rockall score 5 47.6 80.7 128.3 14.1 95.9
6 42.9 90.5 133.4 23.1 96.0
7 28.6 95.3 123.9 28.6 95.3

NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.

  • 1. Barkun AN, Bardou M, Kuipers EJ, et al. International consensus recommendations on the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:101–113.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Laine L, Jensen DM. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:345–360; quiz 361.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 3. Gralnek IM, Dumonceau JM, Kuipers EJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2015;47:a1–a46.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 4. Rockall TA, Logan RF, Devlin HB, Northfield TC. Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut 1996;38:316–321.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 5. Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet 2000;356:1318–1321.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Saltzman JR, Tabak YP, Hyett BH, Sun X, Travis AC, Johannes RS. A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1215–1224.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:1151–1160.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Stanley AJ, Laine L, Dalton HR, et al. Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2017;356:i6432.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 9. Park SM, Yeum SC, Kim BW, et al. Comparison of AIMS65 score and other scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes in Koreans with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gut Liver 2016;10:526–531.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 10. Gu L, Xu F, Yuan J. 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 2018;18:98.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 11. Martínez-Cara JG, Jiménez-Rosales R, Úbeda-Muñoz M, de Hierro ML, de Teresa J, Redondo-Cerezo E. 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 2016;4:371–379.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. Marmo R, Koch M, Cipolletta L, et al. Predicting mortality in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeders: validation of the Italian PNED score and prospective comparison with the Rockall score. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1284–1291.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 13. Jung SH, Oh JH, Lee HY, et al. Is the AIMS65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding? World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:1846–1851.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 14. Romagnuolo J, Barkun AN, Enns R, Armstrong D, Gregor J. Simple clinical predictors may obviate urgent endoscopy in selected patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:265–270.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Garcia-Tsao G, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, Bosch J. Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis: risk stratification, diagnosis, and management: 2016 practice guidance by the American Association for the study of liver diseases. Hepatology 2017;65:310–335.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. 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 2015;63:743–752.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Villanueva C, Colomo A, Bosch A, et al. Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med 2013;368:11–21.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Hyett BH, Abougergi MS, Charpentier JP, et al. The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:551–557.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Bryant RV, Kuo P, Williamson K, et al. Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:576–583.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Abougergi MS, Charpentier JP, Bethea E, et al. A prospective, multicenter study of the AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage outcomes. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016;50:464–469.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Yaka E, Yılmaz S, Doğan N, Pekdemir M. Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems for risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:22–30.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Aquarius M, Smeets FG, Konijn HW, et al. 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 2015;27:1011–1016.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Reed EA, Dalton H, Blatchford O, et al. Is the Glasgow Blatchford score useful in the risk assessment of patients presenting with variceal haemorrhage? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;26:432–437.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Choe JW, Kim SY, Hyun JJ, et al. Is the AIMS 65 score useful in prepdicting clinical outcomes in Korean patients with variceal and nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding? Gut Liver 2017;11:813–820.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 25. Thanapirom K, Ridtitid W, Rerknimitr R, et al. Prospective comparison of three risk scoring systems in non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;31:761–767.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Budimir I, Gradišer M, Nikolić M, et al. Glasgow Blatchford, pre-endoscopic Rockall and AIMS65 scores show no difference in predicting rebleeding rate and mortality in variceal bleeding. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016;51:1375–1379.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Alexandrino G, Carvalho R, Reis J. Comparison of the AIMS65 score with other risk stratification scores in upper variceal and nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. Gut Liver 2018;12:111–113.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 28. Robertson M, Ng J, Abu Shawish W, et al. 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 2020;32:761–768.Article
  • 29. Kim BJ, Park MK, Kim SJ, et al. Comparison of scoring systems for the prediction of outcomes in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective study. Dig Dis Sci 2009;54:2523–2529.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 30. Yang HM, Jeon SW, Jung JT, et al. Comparison of scoring systems for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter prospective cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;31:119–125.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Nakamura S, Matsumoto T, Sugimori H, Esaki M, Kitazono T, Hashizume M. Emergency endoscopy for acute gastrointestinal bleeding: prognostic value of endoscopic hemostasis and the AIMS65 score in Japanese patients. Dig Endosc 2014;26:369–376.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Similar Effect of Vonoprazan and Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors for Preventing Rebleeding in Cases of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
      Hiroko Abe, Kunio Tarasawa, Waku Hatta, Tomoyuki Koike, Isao Sato, Yoshitaka Ono, Yohei Ogata, Masahiro Saito, Xiaoyi Jin, Takeshi Kanno, Kaname Uno, Naoki Asano, Akira Imatani, Kenji Fujimori, Kiyohide Fushimi, Atsushi Masamune
      Internal Medicine.2024; 63(7): 911.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective cohort study
      Kamales Prasitvarakul, Nawawich Attanath, Arunchai Chang
      World Journal of Surgery.2024; 48(2): 474.     CrossRef
    • Lactate level as a predictor of outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta‑analysis
      Fanshu Zeng, Li Du, Ling Ling
      Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • The Prediction and Treatment of Bleeding Esophageal Varices in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Review
      María Isabel Murillo Pineda, Tania Siu Xiao, Edgar J Sanabria Herrera, Alberto Ayala Aguilar, David Arriaga Escamilla, Alejandra M Aleman Reyes, Andreina D Rojas Marron, Roberto R Fabila Lievano, Jessica J de Jesús Correa Gomez, Marily Martinez Ramirez
      Cureus.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Mortality Risk Scoring System in Patients after Bleeding from Cancers in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract
      Hyun Min Kim, Donghoon Kang, Jun Young Park, Yu Kyung Cho, Myung-Gyu Choi, Jae Myung Park
      Gut and Liver.2024; 18(2): 222.     CrossRef
    • Could a bleeding-sensor device be established as a new paradigm for detecting upper gastrointestinal bleeding before performing endoscopy?
      Sun Gyo Lim
      Clinical Endoscopy.2024; 57(2): 191.     CrossRef
    • ASSESSMENT OF PATIENTS WITH NON-VARICEAL UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING USING AIMS65 SCORE
      Farahnaz Joukar, Raheleh Sadat Hosseini Basti, Fakhrieh Sadat Hosseini Basti, Fatemeh Mosafer, Hoorieh Sadat Hosseini Basti, Zahra Hedayatzadeh, Afshin Shafaghi
      Studies in Medical Sciences.2024; 35(1): 51.     CrossRef
    • Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study
      Zie Hae Lim, Seung In Seo, Dae-Seong Myung, Seung Han Kim, Han Hee Lee, Selen Kim, Bo-In Lee
      Clinical Endoscopy.2024; 57(5): 620.     CrossRef
    • AIMS65 Scoring System for Predicting Clinical Outcomes Among Emergency Department Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
      Rifaldy Nabiel, Al Munawir, Jauhar Firdaus
      Indonesian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimation.2024; 6(1): 58.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of Four Scoring Systems for Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
      Elrasheed M Elsabani, Badr A Badr, Mohammad Dhalaan , Anwar Alotaibi, Abdulrahman Alrujaib , Rabab Alahmed, Abdulrahman Alabbadi, Omer Kheir
      Cureus.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Construction and validation of a predictive model for the risk of rebleeding in patients with esophageal and gastric varices hemorrhage
      Wei Gao, Yu-Shuang Huang, Ying-De Wang
      BMC Gastroenterology.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • External validation and comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford score, modified Glasgow-Blatchford score, Rockall score and AIMS65 score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a cross-sectional observational study in Western Switzerland
      Sirio Rivieri, Pierre-Nicolas Carron, Alain Schoepfer, Francois-Xavier Ageron
      European Journal of Emergency Medicine.2023; 30(1): 32.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of Glasgow Blatchford and New Risk Scores to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Acute Upper GI Bleeding
      Bahadır TAŞLIDERE, Elmas BİBERCİ KESKİN, Serdar ÖZDEMİR, Ahmet ATSIZ, Ertan SÖNMEZ
      Bezmialem Science.2023; 11(1): 100.     CrossRef
    • Comparative Evaluation of the ABC Score to Other Risk Stratification Scales in Managing High-risk Patients Presenting With Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
      Omar Kherad, Sophie Restellini, Majid Almadi, Myriam Martel, Alan N. Barkun
      Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2023; 57(5): 479.     CrossRef
    • Progress in the Evaluation of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding with AIMS65 Scoring System
      莉 王
      Advances in Clinical Medicine.2023; 13(05): 8163.     CrossRef
    • Risk analysis of 30-day rebleeding in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
      Xu Wang, Meiling Yang, Jianhua Xu, Yaxian Kuai, Bin Sun
      Arab Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 24(2): 136.     CrossRef
    • Age, blood tests and comorbidities and AIMS65 risk scores outperform Glasgow-Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding
      Bianca-Codrina Morarasu, Victorita Sorodoc, Anca Haisan, Stefan Morarasu, Cristina Bologa, Raluca Ecaterina Haliga, Catalina Lionte, Emilia Adriana Marciuc, Mohammed Elsiddig, Diana Cimpoesu, Gabriel Mihail Dimofte, Laurenţiu Sorodoc
      World Journal of Clinical Cases.2023; 11(19): 4513.     CrossRef
    • Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review
      Ali A. Alali, Antoine Boustany, Myriam Martel, Alan N. Barkun
      Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2023; 17(8): 795.     CrossRef
    • A nomogram to predict in-hospital mortality of gastrointestinal bleeding patients in the intensive care unit
      Xueyan Zhang, Jianfang Ni, Hongwei Zhang, Mengyuan Diao
      Frontiers in Medicine.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Research Status of Pre-Endoscopic Scoring System for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
      莎 吴
      Advances in Clinical Medicine.2023; 13(11): 17097.     CrossRef
    • Recurrent Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding among Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy
      Ah Young Yoo, Moon Kyung Joo, Jong-Jae Park, Beom Jae Lee, Seung Han Kim, Won Shik Kim, Hoon Jai Chun
      Diagnostics.2023; 13(22): 3444.     CrossRef
    • Modified N score is helpful for identifying patients who need endoscopic intervention among those with black stools without hematemesis
      Nobuhito Ito, Kohei Funasaka, Toshihisa Fujiyoshi, Kazuhiro Furukawa, Naomi Kakushima, Satoshi Furune, Eri Ishikawa, Yasuyuki Mizutani, Tsunaki Sawada, Keiko Maeda, Takuya Ishikawa, Takeshi Yamamura, Eizaburo Ohno, Masanao Nakamura, Hiroki Kawashima, Ryoj
      Digestive Endoscopy.2022; 34(6): 1157.     CrossRef
    • Usefulness of the d-dimer to albumin ratio for risk assessment in patients with acute variceal bleeding at the emergency department: retrospective observational study
      Jun Seok Seo, Yongwon Kim, Yoonsuk Lee, Ho Young Chung, Tae Youn Kim
      BMC Emergency Medicine.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Effect of holiday admission on clinical outcome of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A real-world report from Thailand
      Arunchai Chang, Chokethawee Ouejiaraphant, Nuttanit Pungpipattrakul, Keerati Akarapatima, Attapon Rattanasupar, Varayu Prachayakul
      Heliyon.2022; 8(8): e10344.     CrossRef
    • The Value of Risk Scores to Predict Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
      James Yun-wong Lau
      Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(2): 145.     CrossRef
    • Role of lactulose for prophylaxis against hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A randomized trial
      Attapon Rattanasupar, Arunchai Chang, Keerati Akarapatima, Thanongsak Chaojin, Teerha Piratvisuth
      Indian Journal of Gastroenterology.2021; 40(6): 621.     CrossRef
    • Perfusion index: Could this be a new triage tool for upper gastrointestinal system bleeding in the emergency department? A prospective cohort study
      Basak Toptas Firat, Muge Gulen, Salim Satar, Ahmet Firat, Selen Acehan, Cem Isikber, Adem Kaya, Gonca Koksaldi Sahin, Haldun Akoglu
      Sao Paulo Medical Journal.2021; 139(6): 583.     CrossRef
    • Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk scores in prediction for the clinical outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding
      Ling Yang, Rui Sun, Ning Wei, Hong Chen
      Annals of Medicine.2021; 53(1): 1806.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      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
      Clin Endosc. 2021;54(2):211-221.   Published online July 16, 2020
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2020.068
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    • 1
    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
    Image Image
    Fig. 1. A comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting in-hospital mortality in the overall upper gastrointestinal bleeding (OUGIB) patients and patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB). CI, confidence interval; N/A, not available.
    Fig. 2. A comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting (A) the need for blood transfusion; (B) endoscopic intervention requirement; (C) rebleeding; and (D) the composite endpoint of inpatient mortality, need for blood transfusion, overall interventions, and rebleeding in the overall upper gastrointestinal bleeding (OUGIB) patients and patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) and variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB). CI, confidence interval; N/A, not available.

    Fig. 1.

    Fig. 2.

    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
    Scoring system Admission clinical factor Parameter Score
    AIMS65 score Albumin <3.0 mg/dL 1
    INR >1.5 1
    Mental status Altered 1
    SBP, mm Hg ≤90 1
    Age, yr ≥65 1
    Rockall score Age, yr <60 0
    60–79 1
    ≥80 2
    Shock Heart rate >100 bpm 1
    SBP <100 mm Hg 2
    Comorbidity No major 0
    CHF, IHD, or major comorbidity 2
    Renal failure, liver failure, metastatic malignancy 3
    Endoscopic finding Mallory–Weiss tear or no lesion and no stigmata 0
    All other diagnoses 1
    GI malignancy 2
    Stigmata of recent bleeding No stigmata or pigmented spot on ulcer 0
    Blood in upper GI tract, adherent clot, visible vessel, bleeding 2
    Glasgow-Blatchford score BUN, mg/dL ≥18.2 to <22.4 2
    ≥22.4 to <28 3
    ≥28 to <70 4
    ≥70 6
    Hemoglobin level, g/dL Male ≥12.0 to <13.0 1
      ≥10.0 to <12.0 3
      <10.0 6
    Female ≥10.0 to <12.0 1
       <10.0 6
    SBP, mm Hg ≥100 to <109 1
    ≥90 to <100 2
    <90 3
    Other markers Heart rate >100 bpm 1
    Presented with melena 1
    Presented with syncope 2
    Hepatic disease 2
    Cardiac failure 2
    Factor Overall UGIB (n=337) NVUGIB (n=267) VUGIB (n=70) p-value
    Male sex 247 (73.3%) 192 (71.9%) 55 (78.6%) 0.262
    Age (yr), mean±SD 61.1±16.5 62.3±17.2 56.1±12.7 0.001
    Body mass index (kg/m2), mean±SD 23.2±4.6 23.2±4.7 23.0±4.1 0.771
    Fresh blood via nasogastric tube 73 (21.7%) 42 (15.2%) 31 (51.7%) <0.001
    Shock (hemodynamic instability) 45 (13.6%) 29 (10.9%) 16 (22.9%) 0.009
    Syncope 109 (32.3%) 83 (32.1%) 26 (37.1%) 0.335
    History of UGIB 6 (1.8%) 5 (1.9%) 1 (1.4%) 1.000
    Mental status change 8 (2.4%) 6 (2.2%) 2 (2.9%) 0.673
    Comorbidity
     None 175 (51.9%) 132 (49.4%) 30 (42.9%) 0.327
     Hypertension 106 (31.5%) 96 (36.0%) 10 (14.3%) 0.001
     Dyslipidemia 33 (9.8%) 29 (10.9%) 4 (5.7%) 0.197
     Ischemic heart disease 7 (2.1%) 7 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0.352
     Renal failure 25 (7.4%) 22 (8.2%) 3 (4.3%) 0.261
     Cerebrovascular disease 23 (6.8%) 22 (8.2%) 1 (1.4%) 0.058
     Any malignancies 27 (8%) 14 (5.2%) 13 (18.6%) <0.001
     Liver disease 67 (19.9%) 18 (6.7%) 49 (70.0%) <0.001
     Diabetes mellitus 73 (21.6%) 58 (21.7%) 15 (21.43%) 0.530
     Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 9 (2.7%) 9 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0.213
    Medication
     Aspirin and/or clopidogrel 22 (6.5%) 21 (7.9%) 1 (1.4%) 0.057
     Warfarin 7 (2.1%) 7 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0.352
     Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug 37 (11.0%) 35 (13.1%) 2 (2.9%) 0.015
     Corticosteroid 2 (0.6%) 2 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1.000
     Proton pump inhibitor 15 (4.5%) 12 (4.5%) 3 (4.3%) 1.000
    Laboratory
     Hemoglobin 8.9±3.3 9.1±3.4 8.2±2.3 0.007
     Platelet count (×103/µL), median with IQR 228 (162,295) 221 (158,294) 90 (62,124) <0.001
     Albumin (mg/dL), mean±SD 3.18±0.76 3.30±0.74 2.69±0.64 <0.001
     INR, median with IQR 1.17 (1.06, 1.39) 1.12 (1.05, 1.27) 1.48 (1.32, 1.74) <0.001
     BUN (mg/dL), median with IQR 29.0 (16.0, 49.0) 32.0 (17, 52) 24.0 (15, 38) 0.028
     Serum creatinine (mg/dL), median with IQR 1.04 (0.79, 1.41) 1.04 (0.82, 1.43) 0.82 (0.63, 1.22) <0.001
    Endoscopy in 24 hr 214 (63.5%) 174 (65.2%) 40 (57.1%) 0.214
    AIMS65 score, median with IQR 1 (0, 2) 1 (0, 2) 2 (1, 3) <0.001
    Rockall score, median with IQR 3 (2, 4) 3 (2, 4) 2.5 (2, 4) 0.214
    Glasgow-Blatchford score, median with IQR 10 (6, 13) 10 (5, 12) 11 (8, 13) 0.009
    Outcome Overall UGIB (n=337) NVUGIB (n=267) VUGIB (n=70) p-value
    In-hospital mortality 21 (6.2%) 12 (4.5%) 9 (12.9%) 0.022
    Rebleeding 10 (3.0%) 9 (3.4%) 1 (1.4%) 0.694
    Blood transfusion 183 (54.3%) 135 (50.6%) 48 (68.6%) 0.007
    Endoscopic intervention 110 (32.6%) 63 (23.6%) 47 (67.1%) <0.001
    Surgical and/or radiologic intervention 4 (1.2%) 4 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0.584
    Patient population Scoring system Mortality n (%) Score values (median with IQR) Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI) p-value Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) p-value
    Overall UGIB (n=337) AIMS65 score No 316 (93.8) 1 (0 to 2) 1 1
    Yes 21 (6.2) 3 (2 to 4) 1.990 (1.444–2.740) <0.001 1.735 (1.148–2.620)a) 0.009
    Glasgow-Blatchford score No 316 (93.8) 10 (6 to 12) 1 1
    Yes 21 (6.2) 13 (9 to 15) 1.145 (1.024–1.279) 0.017 1.017 (0.890–1.163)b) 0.801
    Rockall score No 316 (93.8) 3 (2 to 4) 1 1
    Yes 21 (6.2) 4 (3 to 7) 1.448 (1.191–1.760) <0.001 1.225 (0.973–1.543)c) 0.084
    Score Cutoff value Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Total (sensitivity + specificity) PPV (%) NPV (%)
    AIMS65 score 2 76.2 61.4 137.6 11.6 97.5
    3 57.1 82.3 139.4 17.6 96.7
    4 33.3 92.4 125.7 22.6 95.4
    Glasgow-Blatchford score 11 66.7 53.8 120.5 8.8 96.0
    12 61.9 96.2 158.1 10.5 96.2
    13 52.4 76.3 128.7 12.8 96.0
    Rockall score 5 47.6 80.7 128.3 14.1 95.9
    6 42.9 90.5 133.4 23.1 96.0
    7 28.6 95.3 123.9 28.6 95.3
    Table 1. Scoring Systems

    BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CHF, congestive heart failure; GI, gastrointestinal; IHD, ischemic heart disease; INR, international normalized ratio; SBP, systolic blood pressure.

    Table 2. Overall Baseline Characteristics and Comparison between Patients with Nonvariceal and Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

    BUN, blood urea nitrogen; INR, international normalized ratio; IQR, interquartile range; NVUGIB, nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; SD, standard deviation; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; VUGIB, variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

    Table 3. Overall Clinical Outcome and Comparison between Patients with Nonvariceal and Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

    NVUGIB, nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding; VUGIB, variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

    Table 4. The Association of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Rockall Score with Risk of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Regardless of the Cause of Upper Gastroesophageal Bleeding

    CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; UGIB, upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

    AIMS65 score: adjusted for gender, malignancy, hemoglobin, platelet count, creatinine.

    Glasgow-Blatchford score: adjusted for gender, age, malignancy, platelet count, albumin, international normalized ratio.

    Rockall score: adjusted for gender, malignancy, hemoglobin, platelet count, albumin, international normalized ratio, creatinine.

    Table 5. Comparison of AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Rockall Score with Estimated Optimal Cutoff Values for In-Hospital Death

    NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Table 4.

    Table 5.

    Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
    © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
    Close layer
    TOP