Gut and liver · 2017
Is the AIMS 65 Score Useful in Prepdicting Clinical Outcomes in Korean Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Choe Jung Wan, Kim Seung Young, Hyun Jong Jin, Jung Sung Woo, Jung Young Kul, Koo Ja Seol, Yim Hyung Joon, Lee Sang Woo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Various clinical scoring systems, including the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall risk score (RS), and AIMS65 score (AIMS65), have been validated to predict the clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We compared the performance of these three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with UGIB in Korea.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 286 patients with UGIB who visited emergency department. The primary outcome was the need for clinical intervention (endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical) and blood transfusion.
RESULTS: The causes of UGIB were esophageal/gastric varices in 64 patients, peptic ulcer in 168, Mallory-Weiss tear in 32, malignancy of UGI tract in eight, and unknown in 14. One hundred seventy-four (61%) patients required blood transfusion, 166 (58%) required endoscopic intervention, and 10 (3.5%) required surgical intervention. The GBS outperformed the RS and AIMS65 in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The GBS and RS were more accurate than AIMS65 in predicting the need for clinical interventions and transfusion patients with UGIB, regardless of variceal or nonvariceal bleeding. The AIMS65 may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcomes of UGIB in Korea.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 286 patients with UGIB who visited emergency department. The primary outcome was the need for clinical intervention (endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical) and blood transfusion.
RESULTS: The causes of UGIB were esophageal/gastric varices in 64 patients, peptic ulcer in 168, Mallory-Weiss tear in 32, malignancy of UGI tract in eight, and unknown in 14. One hundred seventy-four (61%) patients required blood transfusion, 166 (58%) required endoscopic intervention, and 10 (3.5%) required surgical intervention. The GBS outperformed the RS and AIMS65 in predicting the need for endoscopic intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The GBS and RS were more accurate than AIMS65 in predicting the need for clinical interventions and transfusion patients with UGIB, regardless of variceal or nonvariceal bleeding. The AIMS65 may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcomes of UGIB in Korea.