Skip to main content

Advertisement

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