These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validation of prognostic scores for clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding.
    Author: Motola-Kuba M, Escobedo-Arzate A, Tellez-Avila F, Altamirano J, Aguilar-Olivos N, González-Angulo A, Zamarripa-Dorsey F, Uribe M, Chávez-Tapia NC.
    Journal: Ann Hepatol; ; 15(6):895-901. PubMed ID: 27740523.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: Background. The Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford, and AIMS65 are useful and validated scoring systems for predicting the outcomes of patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no validated evidence for using them to predict outcomes on variceal bleeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the prognostic accuracy of different nonvariceal bleeding scores with other liver-specific scoring systems in cirrhotic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study that included 160 cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. The AUROC's to predict in-hospital mortality, and rebleeding, were analyzed for each scoring system. RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality occurred in 13% and in-hospital rebleeding in 12% of patients. The systems with the best AUROC value for predicting mortality were MELD (0.828; 95% CI 0.748-0.909), and AIMS65 (0.817; 95% CI 0.724-0.909). The best score systems for predicting rebleeding were Glasgow-Blatchford (0.756; 95% CI 0.640- 0.827), and Rockall (0.691; 95% CI 0.580-0.802). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to liver-specific scores, the AIMS65 score is accurate for predicting in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. Other scoring systems might be useful for predicting significant clinical outcomes in these patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]