Does the <scp>AIMS</scp>65, a new risk score for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, work in <scp>J</scp>apan?

Masaoka, Tatsuhiro; Suzuki, Hidekazu

doi:10.1111/den.12224

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 5 Several studies have evaluated the predictive accuracy of this new score for different outcome measures, with variable results. 6 14 15 16 17 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also found that older age (>65 years) or low albumin levels (<3.0 g/dL) might have directly affected patient outcomes. Masaoka and Suzuki 17 recently proposed a combined algorithm incorporating both AIMS65 and GBS score to assess patients with suspected UGIB in emergency room settings. In this algorithm, an initial GBS screen is performed; those with low risk (GBS ≤2) receive conservative medical treatment, while high-risk patients (GBS >2) receive further assessment of mortality risk based on AIMS65 score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Application of AIMS65 Scores to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/AimsTo evaluate the ability of the recently proposed albumin, international normalized ratio (INR), mental status, systolic blood pressure, age >65 years (AIMS65) score to predict mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).MethodsAIMS65 scores were calculated in 251 consecutive patients presenting with acute UGIB by allotting 1 point each for albumin level <30 g/L, INR >1.5, alteration in mental status, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years. Risk stratification was done during the initial 12 hours of hospital admission.ResultsIntensive care unit (ICU) admission, endoscopic therapy, or surgery were required in 51 patients (20.3%), 64 (25.5%), and 12 (4.8%), respectively. The predictive accuracy of AIMS65 scores ≥2 was high for blood transfusion (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.59), ICU admission (AUROC, 0.61), and mortality (AUROC, 0.74). The overall mortality was 10.3% (n=26), and was 3%, 7.8%, 20%, 36%, and 40% for AIMS65 scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively; these values were significantly higher in those with scores ≥2 (30.9%) than in those with scores <2 (4.5%, p<0.001).ConclusionsAIMS65 is a simple, accurate, non-endoscopic risk score that can be applied early (within 12 hours of hospital admission) in patients with acute UGIB. AIMS65 scores ≥2 predict high in-hospital mortality.

show abstract

“… 5 Several studies have evaluated the predictive accuracy of this new score for different outcome measures, with variable results. 6 14 15 16 17 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Application of AIMS65 Scores to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21,26 Emergency endoscopy can accurately and quickly determine the etiology and location of bleeding in the cases of AUGIB, and effectively control the hemorrhage. 27,28 In the present cohort of 320 patients, the etiology of AUGIB could be established with endoscopy in 95.3% of the patients. However, in the other 4.7% the cause of bleeding could not be identified.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…To achieve an unbiased comparative relevance among the GBS, mGBS and AIMS65 scoring systems for the emergent treatment of AUGIB, those admitted to the hospital who developed AUGIB for unrelated disease were excluded . Emergency endoscopy can accurately and quickly determine the etiology and location of bleeding in the cases of AUGIB, and effectively control the hemorrhage . In the present cohort of 320 patients, the etiology of AUGIB could be established with endoscopy in 95.3% of the patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective observational study

Zhong

Chen

et al. 2016

J of Digest Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Masaoka et al [64] recently proposed an algorithm to assess the mortality risk, which consisted in applying the AIMS65 score after detecting low-risk patients with GBS ≤ 2.…”

Section: The Importance Of Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Monteiro

Gonçalves

Magalhães

et al. 2016

WJGP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the AIMS65, a new risk score for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, work in Japan?

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

Clinical Application of AIMS65 Scores to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Clinical Application of AIMS65 Scores to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective observational study

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About