• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

急性上消化道出血的风险分层:AIMS65 评分与格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德和罗克洛评分系统的比较。

Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems.

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology and Liver Transplant Unit, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.

Department of Gastroenterology and Liver Transplant Unit, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun;83(6):1151-60. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021. Epub 2015 Oct 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021
PMID:26515955
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The American College of Gastroenterology recommends early risk stratification in patients presenting with upper GI bleeding (UGIB). The AIMS65 score is a risk stratification score previously validated to predict inpatient mortality. The aim of this study was to validate the AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB and to compare it with established pre- and postendoscopy risk scores.

METHODS

ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) codes identified patients presenting with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk stratified by using the AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), pre-endoscopy Rockall, and full Rockall scores. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were a composite endpoint of inpatient mortality, rebleeding, and endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention; blood transfusion requirement; intensive care unit (ICU) admission; rebleeding; and hospital length of stay. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each score.

RESULTS

Of the 424 study patients, 18 (4.2%) died and 69 (16%) achieved the composite endpoint. The AIMS65 score was superior to both the GBS (AUROC, 0.80 vs 0.76, P < .027) and the pre-endoscopy Rockall score (0.74, P = .001) and equivalent to the full Rockall score (0.78, P = .18) in predicting inpatient mortality. The AIMS65 score was superior to all other scores in predicting the need for ICU admission and length of hospital stay. AIMS65, GBS, and full Rockall scores were equivalent (AUROCs, 0.63 vs 0.62 vs 0.63, respectively) and superior to pre-endoscopy Rockall (AUROC, 0.55) in predicting the composite endpoint. GBS was superior to all other scores for predicting blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

The AIMS65 score is a simple risk stratification score for UGIB with accuracy superior to that of GBS and pre-endoscopy Rockall scores in predicting in-hospital mortality and the need for ICU admission.

摘要

背景与目的

美国胃肠病学会建议对出现上消化道出血(UGIB)的患者进行早期风险分层。AIMS65 评分是一种先前经过验证可预测住院死亡率的风险分层评分。本研究的目的是验证 AIMS65 评分作为急性 UGIB 住院患者死亡率预测指标的有效性,并将其与已建立的内镜前和内镜后风险评分进行比较。

方法

国际疾病分类第 10 版(ICD-10)代码确定了需要内镜检查的 UGIB 患者。所有患者均使用 AIMS65、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分(GBS)、内镜前罗克厄尔评分和完整罗克厄尔评分进行风险分层。主要结局是住院死亡率。次要结局包括住院死亡率、再出血和内镜、放射学或手术干预、输血需求、重症监护病房(ICU)入院、再出血和住院时间的复合终点。计算每个评分的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下面积(AUROC)。

结果

在 424 例研究患者中,18 例(4.2%)死亡,69 例(16%)达到复合终点。AIMS65 评分优于 GBS(AUROC,0.80 与 0.76,P<0.027)和内镜前罗克厄尔评分(0.74,P=0.001),与完整罗克厄尔评分(0.78,P=0.18)相当,预测住院死亡率。AIMS65 评分优于其他所有评分,可预测 ICU 入院和住院时间的需求。AIMS65、GBS 和完整罗克厄尔评分(AUROCs,0.63 与 0.62 与 0.63,分别)与内镜前罗克厄尔评分(AUROC,0.55)相当,预测复合终点。GBS 优于其他所有评分,可预测输血需求。

结论

AIMS65 评分是一种用于 UGIB 的简单风险分层评分,其预测住院死亡率和 ICU 入院需求的准确性优于 GBS 和内镜前罗克厄尔评分。

相似文献

1
Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems.急性上消化道出血的风险分层:AIMS65 评分与格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德和罗克洛评分系统的比较。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun;83(6):1151-60. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021. Epub 2015 Oct 26.
2
Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study.上消化道出血患者风险评分系统的比较:国际多中心前瞻性研究
BMJ. 2017 Jan 4;356:i6432. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6432.
3
Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding.格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分在上消化道出血住院患者中预测临床结局和干预的表现。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Oct;78(4):576-83. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.003. Epub 2013 Jun 18.
4
AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.AIMS65 评分系统在预测非静脉曲张性上消化道出血的临床结局方面可与 Glasgow-Blatchford 评分或 Rockall 评分相媲美。
BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 26;19(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s12876-019-1051-8.
5
Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 scoring systems for risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department.格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分系统与AIMS65评分系统在急诊科上消化道出血风险分层中的比较
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jan;22(1):22-30. doi: 10.1111/acem.12554. Epub 2014 Dec 31.
6
Comparison of three risk scores to predict outcomes in upper gastrointestinal bleeding; modifying Glasgow-Blatchford with albumin.三种预测上消化道出血预后的风险评分比较:用白蛋白修正格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分
Rom J Intern Med. 2019 Dec 1;57(4):322-333. doi: 10.2478/rjim-2019-0016.
7
AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score and modified Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score in predicting outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: An accuracy and calibration study.AIMS65、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德出血评分和改良格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德出血评分对上消化道出血结局的预测作用:一项准确性和校准度研究。
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2023 Aug;42(4):496-504. doi: 10.1007/s12664-023-01387-z. Epub 2023 Jun 29.
8
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.急性静脉曲张出血的风险分层:比较AIMS65评分与既定的上消化道出血和肝病严重程度风险分层评分系统在预测死亡率和再出血方面的作用。
Dig Endosc. 2020 Jul;32(5):761-768. doi: 10.1111/den.13577. Epub 2019 Dec 20.
9
The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding.AIMS65 评分与 Glasgow-Blatchford 评分在上消化道出血患者预后预测中的比较。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Apr;77(4):551-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.11.022. Epub 2013 Jan 26.
10
Comparison of three scoring systems for risk stratification in elderly patients wıth acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.老年急性上消化道出血患者风险分层的三种评分系统比较。
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017 Apr;17(4):575-583. doi: 10.1111/ggi.12757. Epub 2016 Apr 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Is There a Role for the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio for Rebleeding and Mortality Risk Prediction in Acute Variceal Bleeding? A Comparative 5-Year Retrospective Study.中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值在急性静脉曲张出血再出血及死亡风险预测中是否有作用?一项为期5年的比较性回顾性研究。
Diseases. 2025 Aug 16;13(8):265. doi: 10.3390/diseases13080265.
2
Comparison of the new risk score (ABL) with the Glasgow Blatchford Score, AIMS65, and pre-endoscopic Rockall Score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding admitted to the emergency department.急诊科收治的上消化道出血患者中,新风险评分(ABL)与格拉斯哥布莱奇福德评分、AIMS65评分及内镜前罗卡尔评分的比较。
BMC Emerg Med. 2025 Jul 18;25(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s12873-025-01291-z.
3
Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol.
在门诊日间内镜中心和院内日间手术中心采用分诊方案的镇静逆转趋势。
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jul 16;16(7):413-423. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v16.i7.413.
4
Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Using Anticoagulants: Does the Timing of Endoscopy Affect Outcomes?抗凝治疗患者的急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血:内镜检查时机是否影响结局?
Dig Dis Sci. 2024 Feb;69(2):570-578. doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08185-9. Epub 2023 Dec 20.
5
Cardiopulmonary prognosis of prophylactic endotracheal intubation in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergoing endoscopy.上消化道出血患者在内镜检查时预防性气管插管的心肺预后
World J Emerg Med. 2023;14(5):372-379. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2023.080.
6
Definition of factor Xa inhibitor-related, life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding and guidance on when to use reversal therapy: A Delphi panel.Xa因子抑制剂相关的危及生命的胃肠道出血的定义及何时使用逆转疗法的指南:德尔菲专家组
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2023 Oct 2;4(5):e13043. doi: 10.1002/emp2.13043. eCollection 2023 Oct.
7
A nomogram to predict in-hospital mortality of gastrointestinal bleeding patients in the intensive care unit.用于预测重症监护病房中胃肠道出血患者院内死亡率的列线图。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Sep 5;10:1204099. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1204099. eCollection 2023.
8
Mortality Risk Scoring System in Patients after Bleeding from Cancers in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract.上消化道出血癌症患者的死亡率风险评分系统。
Gut Liver. 2024 Mar 15;18(2):222-230. doi: 10.5009/gnl230069. Epub 2023 Sep 19.
9
Age, blood tests and comorbidities and AIMS65 risk scores outperform Glasgow-Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.对于上消化道出血患者,年龄、血液检查、合并症及AIMS65风险评分比格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分和内镜检查前罗卡尔评分表现更优。
World J Clin Cases. 2023 Jul 6;11(19):4513-4530. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i19.4513.
10
A Review of Risk Scores within Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.上消化道出血风险评分综述
J Clin Med. 2023 May 26;12(11):3678. doi: 10.3390/jcm12113678.