• 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

比较非内镜评分对三级转诊医院急诊上消化道出血患者预后的预测价值:一项前瞻性队列研究。

COMPARISON OF NON-ENDOSCOPIC SCORES FOR THE PREDICTION OF OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS OF UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEED IN AN EMERGENCY OF A TERTIARY CARE REFERRAL HOSPITAL: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.

机构信息

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Department of Gastroenterology, Chandigarh, India.

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Department of Internal Medicine, Chandigarh, India.

出版信息

Arq Gastroenterol. 2021 Oct-Dec;58(4):534-540. doi: 10.1590/S0004-2803.202100000-95.

DOI:10.1590/S0004-2803.202100000-95
PMID:34909862
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Traditionally peptic ulcer disease was the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleed but with the changing epidemiology; other etiologies of UGI bleed are emerging. Many scores have been described for predicting outcomes and the need for intervention in UGI bleed but prospective comparison among them is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study was planned to determine the etiological pattern of UGI bleed and to compare Glasgow Blatchford score, Pre-Endoscopy Rockall score, AIMS65, and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) as predictors of outcome.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study 268 patients of UGI bleed were enrolled and followed up for 8 weeks. Glasgow Blatchford score, Endoscopy Rockall score, AIMS65, and MEWS were calculated for each patient, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve for each score was compared.

RESULTS

The most common etiology for UGI bleed were gastroesophageal varices 150 (63.55%) followed by peptic ulcer disease 29 (12.28%) and mucosal erosive disease 27 (11.44%). Total 38 (15.26%) patients had re-bleed and 71 (28.5%) patients died. Overall, 126 (47%) patients required blood component transfusion, 25 (9.3%) patients required mechanical ventilation and 2 (0.74%) patients required surgical intervention. Glasgow Blatchford score was the best in predicting the need for transfusion (cut off - 10, AUC-ROC= 0.678). Whereas AIMS65 with a score of ≥2 was best in predicting re-bleed (AUC-ROC=0.626) and mortality (AUC-ROC=0.725).

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal bleed was most commonly of variceal origin at our tertiary referral center in Northern India. AIMS65 was the best & simplest score with a score of ≥2 for predicting re-bleed and mortality.

摘要

背景

传统上,消化性溃疡病是上消化道(UGI)出血的最常见原因,但随着流行病学的变化,UGI 出血的其他病因也在出现。已经描述了许多评分来预测 UGI 出血的结果和干预需求,但它们之间的前瞻性比较很少。

目的

本研究旨在确定 UGI 出血的病因模式,并比较格拉斯哥布拉德福评分、内镜前罗克厄尔评分、AIMS65 和改良早期预警评分(MEWS)作为预后预测指标。

方法

在这项前瞻性队列研究中,共纳入 268 例 UGI 出血患者,并进行了 8 周的随访。为每位患者计算了格拉斯哥布拉德福评分、内镜前罗克厄尔评分、AIMS65 和 MEWS,并比较了每个评分的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC-ROC)。

结果

UGI 出血的最常见病因是胃食管静脉曲张 150 例(63.55%),其次是消化性溃疡病 29 例(12.28%)和黏膜糜烂性疾病 27 例(11.44%)。共有 38 例(15.26%)患者再次出血,71 例(28.5%)患者死亡。总体而言,126 例(47%)患者需要输血,25 例(9.3%)患者需要机械通气,2 例(0.74%)患者需要手术干预。格拉斯哥布拉德福评分是预测输血需求的最佳评分(截断值为-10,AUC-ROC=0.678)。而 AIMS65 的评分≥2 是预测再出血(AUC-ROC=0.626)和死亡率(AUC-ROC=0.725)的最佳评分。

结论

在我们位于印度北部的三级转诊中心,胃肠道出血最常见的原因是静脉曲张。AIMS65 是一种简单而最佳的评分,其评分≥2 可预测再出血和死亡率。

相似文献

1
COMPARISON OF NON-ENDOSCOPIC SCORES FOR THE PREDICTION OF OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS OF UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEED IN AN EMERGENCY OF A TERTIARY CARE REFERRAL HOSPITAL: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.比较非内镜评分对三级转诊医院急诊上消化道出血患者预后的预测价值:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Arq Gastroenterol. 2021 Oct-Dec;58(4):534-540. doi: 10.1590/S0004-2803.202100000-95.
2
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.
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
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.
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 between Glascow-Blatchford, Rockall and AIMS65 scores in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a hospital in Lima, Peru].[秘鲁利马一家医院中格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德、罗卡尔和AIMS65评分在上消化道出血患者中的比较]
Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2016 Apr-Jun;36(2):143-52.
7
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.
8
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.
9
A modified Glasgow Blatchford Score improves risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleed: a prospective comparison of scoring systems.改良 Glasgow-Blatchford 评分提高了上消化道出血的风险分层:评分系统的前瞻性比较。
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Oct;36(8):782-9. doi: 10.1111/apt.12029. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
10
External validation and comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford score, modified Glasgow-Blatchford score, Rockall score and AIMS65 score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a cross-sectional observational study in Western Switzerland.瑞士西部一项上消化道出血患者的横断面观察性研究:格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分、改良格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分、罗克洛评分和 AIMS65 评分的外部验证和比较。
Eur J Emerg Med. 2023 Feb 1;30(1):32-39. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000983. Epub 2022 Nov 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Predictive Utility of Pre- and Post-Endoscopic Risk Scores and Hemodynamic Indexes in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department.急诊科急性上消化道出血中内镜检查前后风险评分及血流动力学指标的预测效用
Int J Gen Med. 2025 Aug 28;18:4873-4884. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S532949. eCollection 2025.
2
Interpretations of the Role of Plasma Albumin in Prognostic Indices: A Literature Review.血浆白蛋白在预后指标中的作用解读:文献综述
J Clin Med. 2023 Sep 22;12(19):6132. doi: 10.3390/jcm12196132.