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: Comparing AIMS65 Score With MEWS, qSOFA Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Cirrhotic Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
    Author: Lai YC, Hung MS, Chen YH, Chen YC.
    Journal: J Acute Med; 2018 Dec 01; 8(4):154-167. PubMed ID: 32995218.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to compare the Age 65; International normalized ratio; Mental status; Shock (AIMS65) score with the Modifi ed Early Warning Score (MEWS), quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and the complete Rockall score (CRS) in predicting clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). METHODS: A total of 442 consecutive cirrhotic patients admitted with UGIB during a 17-month period were retrospectively investigated. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were rebleeding, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and development of infection. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each system was analyzed. RESULTS: For prediction of mortality, the AUC of the AIMS65 score was greater than that of other scoring systems without statistical signifi cance. For the prediction of rebleeding, the AIMS65 score was superior to qSOFA (0.65 vs. 0.56, p = 0.020). For the prediction of ICU admission, the AIMS65 score was superior to the GBS and CRS (0.77 vs. 0.63, p = 0.005 and 0.77 vs. 0.63, p = 0.007, respectively). For the prediction of the development of infection, the AIMS65 score was superior to CRS (0.73 vs. 0.60, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In predicting in-hospital mortality among cirrhotic patients with UGIB, the AIMS65 score showed a trend of better performance than the MEWS, qSOFA score, GBS, and CRS. The AUCs of the AIMS65 score were greater than other four systems in predicting rebleeding, ICU admission and the development of infection.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]