Skip to main content

Table 4 The associations of RS, GBS and AIMS65 scores with the risk of in-hospital death among participants by type of UGIB in Nanjing, China

From: Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow–Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in predicting the risk of in-hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Nanjing, China

Sub-group of participants

Scoring system

Mortality

n (%)

Score values (Mean ± SD)

Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI)

Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)

NVUGIB (n = 674)

RS

No

658(97.6)

2.27 ± 1.41

1

1

Yes

16 (2.4)

3.94 ± 1.44

1.83 (1.38, 2.42)

1.79 (1.24, 2.58)a

GBS

No

658(97.6)

7.82 ± 3.56

1

1

Yes

16 (2.4)

10.06 ± 3.85

1.22 (1.04, 1.43)

0.99 (0.82, 1.18)b

AIMS65

No

658(97.6)

0.58 ± 0.72

1

1

Yes

16 (2.4)

2.31 ± 1.14

7.29(3.81, 13.94)

8.72 (3.54, 21.48)c

VUGIB (n = 125)

RS

No

116 (92.8)

2.86 ± 1.78

1

1

Yes

9 (7.2)

4.88 ± 1.90

1.64 (0.88, 3.08)

1.95(0.79, 4.80)a

GBS

No

116 (92.8)

8.31 ± 3.64

1

1

Yes

9 (7.2)

11.24 ± 4.02

1.48 (1.07, 2.05)

1.26 (0.88, 1.82)b

AIMS65

No

116 (92.8)

0.69 ± 0.99

1

1

Yes

9 (7.2)

2.00 ± 1.00

28.88(3.76, 222.02)

244.11 (4.18, 14,266.12)c

  1. aRS: Adjusted for gender, Hb, Albumin, BUN, INR, Mental status/Syncope, PT and PLT
  2. bGBS: Adjusted for age, gender, Albumin, INR, PT, PLT and endoscopic findings
  3. cAIMS65: Adjusted for gender, Hb, BUN, heart rate, co-morbidity, PT, PLT and endoscopic findings