Validation of High Aims 65 Score in Patients  with Variceal Bleed

Aafia Saeed; Muhammad Mansoor ul Haq; Adeel Rahat

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v75i1.10110

Authors

Aafia Saeed Department of Gastroenterology, Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi Pakistan
Muhammad Mansoor ul Haq Department of Gastroenterology, Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi Pakistan
Adeel Rahat Department of Gastroenterology, Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v75i1.10110

Keywords:

AIMS 65, Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Variceal bleeding, 30 days mortality

Abstract

Objective: To validate high AIMS 65 score for predicting 30-day mortality in patients with variceal bleed presenting to a tertiary care hospital.

Study Design: Prospective longitudinal study.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Gastroenterology, Liaquat National Hospital Karachi, Pakistan from Aug 2021 to Apr 2022.

Methodology: Cirrhotic patients having variceal bleeding requiring hospital admission, aged 18-60 years of either gender, with history of hematemesis and/or melena were assessed clinically and enrolled into the study after taking consent. All the patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy at the endoscopy suite. Laboratory investigations were done upon their hospital admission to figure out the AIMS 65 score. Patients’ demographic and clinical details were documented in a pre-designed proforma by the assigned data collectors.

Results: 267 patients were enrolled with median age of 57(interquartile range=50-63) Median CLD duration of 48 months (IQR=36-60). There was a predominance of male patients (67.4%). Majority of the patients had AIMS score of 2(56.2%) whereas 43.8% had score of 3.30 days whereas mortality was observed in 19.1% of the cases. The frequency of mortality was significantly higher in patients having AIMS score of 3 as compared to AIMS score of 2 (70.1% versus 29.9%, p<0.001). Area under the curve of AIMS65 score was 65% (95% CI: 0.57-0.74, p=0.010).

Conclusion: The study shows a rise in mortality with increasing score of AIMS65. However, AIMS65 was not found to be accurate tool for predicting mortality in cases of variceal bleeding.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ginès P, Krag A, Abraldes G, Solà E, Fabrellas N, Kamath S. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet. 2021; 398(10308): 1359-1376.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01374-x

Tayyem O, Bilal M, Samuel R, Merwat SK. Evaluation and management of variceal bleeding. Dis Mon. 2018; 64(7): 312-320.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disamonth.2018.02.001

Alqahtani A, Jang S. Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding. Drugs. 2021; 81(6): 647-667.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-021-01493-2

Majeed A, Majumdar A, Bailey M, Kemp W, Bellomo R, Pilcher D, et al., Declining Mortality of Cirrhotic Variceal Bleeding Requiring Admission to Intensive Care: A Binational Cohort Study. Crit Care Med. 2019; 47(10): 1317-1323.

https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000003902

Mehmood T, Zia Q, Latif A, Ansar S. Mortality Related Factors in Patients with Variceal Bleeding with MELD Score ≥ 18. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019; 29(12): 1199-1202.

https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2019.12.1199

Monteiro S, Gonçalves C, Magalhães J, Cotter J. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why? World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2016; 7(1): 86-96.

https://doi.org/10.4291/wjgp.v7.i1.86

Kawaguchi K, Isomoto H. Validation of AIMS65 to predict outcomes in acute variceal bleeding: Which risk scoring system outperforms in real practice? Dig Endosc. 2020; 32(5): 739-741. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.13657

Kim S, Choi J. AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. BMC gastroenterol. 2019; 19(1): 136.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-019-1051-8

Saltzman R, Tabak P, Hyett H, Sun X, Travis C, Johannes S. A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74(6): 1215-1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.024

Thanapirom K, Ridtitid W, Rerknimitr R, Thungsuk R, Noophun P, Wongjitrat C, et al., Prospective comparison of three risk scoring systems in non-variceal and variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 31(4): 761-767.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.13222

Akbar J, Yousaf A, Waheed W, Qadir M, Ali S, Javaid H. Role OF AIMS65 score in determining frequency of mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed. Pak Army Forced Med J. 2019; 69(2): 245-249.

Budimir I, Gradišer M, Nikolić M, Baršić N, Ljubičić N, Kralj D, et al., Glasgow Blatchford, pre-endoscopic Rockall and AIMS65 scores show no difference in predicting rebleeding rate and mortality in variceal bleeding. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016; 51(11): 1375-1379.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2016.1200138

Kuba M, Escobedo A, Tellez F, Altamirano J, Aguilar N, González A, et al., Validation of prognostic scores for clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. Ann Hepatol. 2016; 15(6): 895-901.

https://doi.org/10.5604/16652681.1222107

Garcia G, Abraldes G, Berzigotti A, Bosch J. Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis: Risk stratification, diagnosis, and management: 2016 practice guidance by the American Association for the study of liver diseases. Hepatology. 2017; 65(1): 310-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28906

Barkun N, Almadi M, Kuipers J, Laine L, Sung J, Tse F, et al., Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 171(11): 805-822.

https://doi.org/10.7326/m19-1795

Zaghloul G, El Hady A, Hussein M, Hassan A. Predictors Of Variceal Bleeding After Esophageal Varices Band Ligation In Egyptian Cirrhotic Patients. ZagaZig Univ Med J. 2018; 24(1): 80-92.https://doi.org/10.21608/zumj.2018.13009

Chandnani S, Rathi P, Sonthalia N, Udgirkar S, Jain S, Contractor Q, et al., Comparison of risk scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding in western India: A prospective analysis. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2019; 38(2): 117-127.

https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-2803.201900000-54

Chandnani S, Rathi P, Udgirkar S, Sonthalia N, Contractor Q, Jain S. Clinical utility of risk scores in variceal bleeding. Arq Gastroenterol. 2019; 56(3): 286-293.

https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-2803.201900000-54

Mujtaba G, Kalwar A, Shaikh T, Khalid T, Shaikh N, Manzoor W. Diagnostic accuracy of AIMS-65 clinical scoring system in predicting outcome in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding presenting at Tertiary Care Hospital, Karachi. Profess Med J. 2020; 27(10): 2104-2109.

https://doi.org/10.29309/TPMJ/2020.27.10.4243

Choe W, Kim Y, Hyun J, Jung W, Jung K, Koo S, et al., Is the AIMS 65 Score Useful in Prepdicting Clinical Outcomes in Korean Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding? Gut Liver. 2017; 11(6): 813-820. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl16607

Aluizio S, Montes G, Reis G, Nagasako K. Risk stratification in acute variceal bleeding: Far from an ideal score. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2021; 76:e2921.https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2021/e2921