Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 14, 2026
Induction of Intestinal Graft-versus-host Disease and Its Mini-endoscopic Assessment in Live Mice
Published on: February 11, 2019
The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding
Brian H Hyett1, Marwan S Abougergi, Joseph P Charpentier
1Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Introduction:
We previously derived and validated the AIMS65 score, a mortality prognostic scale for upper GI bleeding (UGIB).
Objective:
To validate the AIMS65 score in a different patient population and compare it with the Glasgow-Blatchford risk score (GBRS).
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Patients:
Adults with a primary diagnosis of UGIB.
Primary Outcome:
inpatient mortality.
Secondary Outcomes:
composite clinical endpoint of inpatient mortality, rebleeding, and endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention; blood transfusion; intensive care unit admission; rebleeding; length of stay; timing of endoscopy. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each score.
Results:
Of the 278 study patients, 6.5% died and 35% experienced the composite clinical endpoint. The AIMS65 score was superior in predicting inpatient mortality (AUROC, 0.93 vs 0.68; P < .001), whereas the GBRS was superior in predicting blood transfusions (AUROC, 0.85 vs 0.65; P < .01) The 2 scores were similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint (AUROC, 0.62 vs 0.68; P = .13) as well as the secondary outcomes. A GBRS of 10 and 12 or more maximized the sum of the sensitivity and specificity for inpatient mortality and rebleeding, respectively. The cutoff was 2 or more for the AIMS65 score for both outcomes.
Limitations:
Retrospective, single-center study.
Conclusion:
The AIMS65 score is superior to the GBRS in predicting inpatient mortality from UGIB, whereas the GBRS is superior for predicting blood transfusion. Both scores are similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint and other outcomes in clinical care and resource use.
Related Concept Videos
01:17Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System I: Subjective Data
Health History
The initial step in assessing the GI system is obtaining a comprehensive health history. This includes inquiring about the patient's history or presence of problems related to...
01:28Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol abuse, or...
01:28Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.