Prognostic Value of AIMS65 Score to Predict Outcome in Patients With Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Prognostic Value of AIMS65 Score to predict outcome in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Study Overview

• Status: Recruiting
• Conditions: Patients With Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: AIMS65 score

Detailed Description

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most important disease presentations in the emergency department. The course of the disease ranges from a self-limiting process to a life-threatening condition that requires emergency intervention. Evaluation of severity and the need for endoscopic hemostasis are matters of immediate decision. several prognostic scoring systems have been used to predict outcomes of upper GI bleeding ,such as the Rockall score, Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and the AIMS65 score, among which AIMS65 is relatively easy to remember and simple to calculate by using parameters routinely available in the ED and importantly does not require endoscopic variables for calculation..

The AIMS65 score consists of five factors:

(i)albumin (1 point for value less than 3.0 g/dL (30 g/L)). (ii)INR (1 point for value greater than 1.5) . (iii)altered mental status (1 point given if Glasgow coma score was less than 14 or if disorientation, lethargy, stupor, or coma was seen) (iv)systolic blood pressure (1 point for value less than 90 mmHg). (v)age (1 point for value greater than 65 years). AIMS65 score >1: high risk patients. AIMS65 score >2: consider ICU management and an urgent endoscopy following adequate volume resuscitation, while AIMS65 score of 0 can be considered for outpatient management.

AIMS65 score is a simple non-endoscopic risk score that can be applied in patients of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding to risk stratify and to predict in-patient mortality, the need for blood transfusion, endoscopic therapy or ICU admission.

In a comparative study of AIMS65 score and GBS ,they found that the AIMS65 score was superior in predicting inpatient mortality from UGIB, while the GBS was superior for predicting the need for blood transfusion. Both scores were similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint .

• Study Type: Observational
• Enrollment (Anticipated): 100

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: nessma M abbass, resident; Phone Number: 01009692981; Email: nesmamahmoud@med.sohag.edu.eg
• Study Contact Backup: Name: Ali T Ali, professor; Phone Number: 01005871047

Study Locations

• Egypt
  • Sohag, Egypt, Sohag
    • Recruiting
    • Sohag university Hospital

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

• Sampling Method: Probability Sample

Study Population

Patients above 18 years of age.

• Patients with acute UGIB presenting within 24 hours of hemorrhage onset.
• Endoscopic evaluation done after hospital admission.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• o Patients above 18 years of age.

  • Patients with acute UGIB presenting within 24 hours of hemorrhage onset.
  • Endoscopic evaluation done after hospital admission.

Exclusion Criteria:

• o Patients denying for consent.

  • Patients with late presentation (>24 hours) after UGIB onset.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
to evaluate the prognostic value of AIMS65 score in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding admitted to Sohag University Hospital.	blood transfusion endoscopic therapy ICU admission Need of surgery, incidence of rebleeding duration of hospital and ICU stay.	6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Sohag University

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Bryant RV, Kuo P, Williamson K, Yam C, Schoeman MN, Holloway RH, Nguyen NQ. Performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting clinical outcomes and intervention in hospitalized patients with upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Oct;78(4):576-83. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.003. Epub 2013 Jun 18.
• Saltzman JR, Tabak YP, Hyett BH, Sun X, Travis AC, Johannes RS. A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Dec;74(6):1215-24. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.024. Epub 2011 Sep 10.
• Thandassery RB, Sharma M, John AK, Al-Ejji KM, Wani H, Sultan K, Al-Mohannadi M, Yakoob R, Derbala M, Al-Dweik N, Butt MT, Al-Kaabi SR. Clinical Application of AIMS65 Scores to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage. Clin Endosc. 2015 Sep;48(5):380-4. doi: 10.5946/ce.2015.48.5.380. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
• Stanley AJ, Laine L, Dalton HR, Ngu JH, Schultz M, Abazi R, Zakko L, Thornton S, Wilkinson K, Khor CJ, Murray IA, Laursen SB; International Gastrointestinal Bleeding Consortium. Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2017 Jan 4;356:i6432. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6432.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): March 1, 2023
• Primary Completion (Anticipated): September 1, 2023
• Study Completion (Anticipated): September 1, 2023

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: March 6, 2023
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 6, 2023
• First Posted (Actual): March 17, 2023

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): March 31, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 28, 2023
• Last Verified: March 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Digestive System Diseases; Pathologic Processes; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Hemorrhage; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage
• Other Study ID Numbers: Soh-Med-23-02-07

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No