• 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

AIMS65评分、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分和罗卡尔评分对静脉曲张性和非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者临床结局预测的前瞻性比较

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.

作者信息

Chang Arunchai, Ouejiaraphant Chokethawee, Akarapatima Keerati, Rattanasupa Attapon, Prachayakul Varayu

机构信息

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

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

出版信息

Clin Endosc. 2021 Mar;54(2):211-221. doi: 10.5946/ce.2020.068. Epub 2020 Jul 16.

DOI:10.5946/ce.2020.068
PMID:32668528
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039743/
Abstract

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

背景/目的:本研究旨在确定AIMS65评分(AIMS65)、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分(GBS)和罗卡尔评分(RS)在预测上消化道出血(UGIB)患者预后方面的表现,并比较非静脉曲张性UGIB(NVUGIB)患者和静脉曲张性UGIB(VUGIB)患者的结果。

方法

我们在2016年3月至2017年12月期间进行了一项前瞻性观察研究。对所有结局进行受试者工作特征曲线分析以进行比较。使用多因素逻辑回归分析评估所有三个评分与死亡率的关联。

结果

在总共337例UGIB患者中,267例(79.2%)为NVUGIB。AIMS65与死亡率风险显著相关(比值比[OR],1.735;95%置信区间[CI],1.148 - 2.620),RS有边缘相关性(OR,1.225;95% CI,0.973 - 1.543),但GBS与UGIB患者的死亡率风险无关(OR,1.017;95% CI,0.890 - 1.163)。然而,除再出血(p>0.05)外,所有三个评分均准确预测了所有其他结局(所有p<0.05)。只有AIMS65能准确预测VUGIB患者的死亡率、输血需求和复合终点(所有p<0.05)。

结论

在预测UGIB患者的死亡率方面,AIMS65优于GBS和RS,并且还能准确预测VUGIB患者的输血需求和复合终点。没有评分系统能够令人满意地预测所有UGIB患者的再出血情况。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a328/8039743/95f557de2c3d/ce-2020-068f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a328/8039743/7197fc2f5239/ce-2020-068f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a328/8039743/95f557de2c3d/ce-2020-068f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a328/8039743/7197fc2f5239/ce-2020-068f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a328/8039743/95f557de2c3d/ce-2020-068f2.jpg

相似文献

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.AIMS65评分、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分和罗卡尔评分对静脉曲张性和非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者临床结局预测的前瞻性比较
Clin Endosc. 2021 Mar;54(2):211-221. doi: 10.5946/ce.2020.068. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
2
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.AIMS65、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德和罗卡尔评分方法在预测急诊住院上消化道出血患者院内死亡风险中的比较:中国南京的一项回顾性观察研究。
BMC Gastroenterol. 2018 Jun 28;18(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12876-018-0828-5.
3
Comparison of various prognostic scores in variceal and non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective cohort study.静脉曲张性与非静脉曲张性上消化道出血中各种预后评分的比较:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr;38(2):158-166. doi: 10.1007/s12664-018-0928-8. Epub 2019 Mar 4.
4
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.
5
Comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems for the prediction of the risk of in-hospital death among patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.比较 AIMS65 评分与格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德和罗克洛评分系统对上消化道出血患者住院死亡风险的预测。
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2020 Jun;112(6):467-473. doi: 10.17235/reed.2020.6496/2019.
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
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.
9
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.AIMS65、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分和罗克洛评分在欧洲上消化道出血患者系列中的比较:预测住院和延迟死亡率时的表现。
United European Gastroenterol J. 2016 Jun;4(3):371-9. doi: 10.1177/2050640615604779. Epub 2015 Sep 7.
10
Comparison of AIMS65 Score and Other Scoring Systems for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Koreans with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.AIMS65评分与其他评分系统对韩国非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者临床结局预测的比较
Gut Liver. 2016 Jul 15;10(4):526-31. doi: 10.5009/gnl15153.

引用本文的文献

1
Risk stratification and scoring systems in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: review of performance and limitations in the emergency department.上消化道和下消化道出血的风险分层与评分系统:急诊科的性能与局限性综述
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Jun 20;12:1564015. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1564015. eCollection 2025.
2
Hemoglobin, Albumin, Lymphocyte and Platelet Score as a Novel Predictor of Mortality and Rebleeding in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.血红蛋白、白蛋白、淋巴细胞及血小板评分作为上消化道出血患者死亡率和再出血的新型预测指标
Int J Gen Med. 2025 May 5;18:2391-2400. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S520925. eCollection 2025.
3

本文引用的文献

1
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.
2
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.AIMS65、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德和罗卡尔评分方法在预测急诊住院上消化道出血患者院内死亡风险中的比较:中国南京的一项回顾性观察研究。
BMC Gastroenterol. 2018 Jun 28;18(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12876-018-0828-5.
3
Impact of duration to endoscopy in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: propensity score matching analysis of real-world data from Thailand.
非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者内镜检查时机的影响:泰国真实世界数据的倾向评分匹配分析
BMC Gastroenterol. 2025 Feb 17;25(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12876-025-03673-w.
4
Construction and validation of a predictive model for the risk of rebleeding in patients with esophageal and gastric varices hemorrhage.食管胃静脉曲张出血患者再出血风险预测模型的构建与验证
BMC Gastroenterol. 2024 Dec 23;24(1):471. doi: 10.1186/s12876-024-03569-1.
5
Comparison of Four Scoring Systems for Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者四种评分系统的比较
Cureus. 2024 Nov 28;16(11):e74684. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74684. eCollection 2024 Nov.
6
The Prediction and Treatment of Bleeding Esophageal Varices in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Review.人工智能时代食管静脉曲张出血的预测与治疗:综述
Cureus. 2024 Mar 8;16(3):e55786. doi: 10.7759/cureus.55786. eCollection 2024 Mar.
7
Could a bleeding-sensor device be established as a new paradigm for detecting upper gastrointestinal bleeding before performing endoscopy?能否将一种出血传感器设备确立为在进行内镜检查之前检测上消化道出血的新范例?
Clin Endosc. 2024 Mar;57(2):191-192. doi: 10.5946/ce.2024.008. Epub 2024 Mar 14.
8
Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study.内镜止血粉在胃肠道出血中的现状及临床疗效:一项回顾性多中心研究
Clin Endosc. 2024 Sep;57(5):620-627. doi: 10.5946/ce.2023.179. Epub 2024 Mar 8.
9
Lactate level as a predictor of outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.乳酸水平作为急性上消化道出血患者预后的预测指标:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Exp Ther Med. 2024 Jan 24;27(3):113. doi: 10.3892/etm.2024.12401. eCollection 2024 Mar.
10
Recurrent Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding among Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy.接受双联抗血小板治疗的患者复发性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Nov 14;13(22):3444. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13223444.
Comparison of the AIMS65 Score with Other Risk Stratification Scores in Upper Variceal and Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding.AIMS65评分与其他风险分层评分在上消化道静脉曲张和非静脉曲张性胃肠道出血中的比较。
Gut Liver. 2018 Jan 15;12(1):111-113. doi: 10.5009/gnl17380.
4
Is the AIMS 65 Score Useful in Prepdicting Clinical Outcomes in Korean Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?AIMS65 评分在预测韩国上消化道静脉曲张和非静脉曲张性出血患者的临床结局方面是否有用?
Gut Liver. 2017 Nov 15;11(6):813-820. doi: 10.5009/gnl16607.
5
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.
6
Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis: Risk stratification, diagnosis, and management: 2016 practice guidance by the American Association for the study of liver diseases.肝硬化门静脉高压出血:风险分层、诊断及管理:美国肝病研究协会2016年实践指南
Hepatology. 2017 Jan;65(1):310-335. doi: 10.1002/hep.28906. Epub 2016 Dec 1.
7
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.AIMS65、格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分和罗克洛评分在欧洲上消化道出血患者系列中的比较:预测住院和延迟死亡率时的表现。
United European Gastroenterol J. 2016 Jun;4(3):371-9. doi: 10.1177/2050640615604779. Epub 2015 Sep 7.
8
Comparison of AIMS65 Score and Other Scoring Systems for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Koreans with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.AIMS65评分与其他评分系统对韩国非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者临床结局预测的比较
Gut Liver. 2016 Jul 15;10(4):526-31. doi: 10.5009/gnl15153.
9
Glasgow Blatchford, pre-endoscopic Rockall and AIMS65 scores show no difference in predicting rebleeding rate and mortality in variceal bleeding.格拉斯哥布莱奇福德评分、内镜检查前罗卡尔评分和AIMS65评分在预测静脉曲张出血的再出血率和死亡率方面没有差异。
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016 Nov;51(11):1375-9. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2016.1200138. Epub 2016 Jun 29.
10
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.