Prognostic Value of AIMS65 Score in Cirrhotic Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Gastroenterology Research and Practice Volume 2014, Article ID 787256, 8 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/787256 Research Article Prognostic Value of AIMS65 Score in Cirrhotic Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Vinaya Gaduputi, Molham Abdulsamad, Hassan Tariq, Ahmed Rafeeq, Naeem Abbas, Kavitha Kumbum, and Sridhar Chilimuri Department of Medicine, Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, 1650 Selwyn Avenue, Suite No. 10C, Bronx, NY 10457, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Hassan Tariq; [email protected] Received 5 July 2014; Revised 1 December 2014; Accepted 2 December 2014; Published 22 December 2014 Academic Editor: Spiros D. Ladas Copyright © 2014 Vinaya Gaduputi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Introduction. Unlike Rockall scoring system, AIMS65 is based only on clinical and laboratory features. In this study we investigated the correlation between the AIMS65 score and Endoscopic Rockall score, in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. Methods. This is a retrospective study of patients admitted with overt UGIB and undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). AIMS65 and Rockall scores were calculated at the time of admission. We investigated the correlation between both scores along with stigmata of bleed seen on endoscopy. Results. A total of 1255 patients were studied. 152 patients were cirrhotic while 1103 patients were noncirrhotic. There was significant correlation between AIMS65 and Total Rockall scores in patients of both groups. Therewas significant correlation between AIMS65 score and Endoscopic Rockall score in noncirrhotics but not cirrhotics. AIMS65 scores in both cirrhotic and noncirrhotic groups were significantly higher in patients who died from UGIB than in patients who did not. Conclusion. We observed statistically significant correlation between AIMS65 score and length of hospitalization and mortality in noncirrhotic patients. We found that AIMS65 score paralleled the endoscopic grading of lesion causing UGIB in noncirrhotics. AIMS65 score correlated only with mortality but not the length of hospitalization or endoscopic stigmata of bleed in cirrhotics. 1. Introduction These predictors serve to help making an optimal choice towards endoscopic intervention directed towards achieving Patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) homeostasis (dual therapy versus single therapy versus no commonly present with either hematemesis or melena. The therapy). most important step in initial evaluation of such patients The score proposed by Rockall et2 al.[ ]incorporatesboth involves risk stratification with emphasis on assessing the clinical, laboratory parameters like age, presence of shock, hemodynamicstatusanditsappropriateremediation.Itis and comorbidities and endoscopic parameters including also imperative to examine the need for endoscopic inter- diagnosis and stigmata of bleeding. This score had been vention immediately after stabilization. There have been designed to predict the risk of continued bleeding and death. multiple scores that have been put forth to prognosticate Thescorealsothereforeaidsindeterminingthetimingof the risk of rebleeding and inpatient mortality rate. These endoscopic intervention. However, some studies have shown scores could be broadly divided into two categories: scores that the score is valid in predicting the risk of rebleed alone involving weighted endoscopic findings along with clinical but not death [3]. Blatchford score [4]onthecontrarytakes and laboratory features (Rockall scores) and scores without intoaccountonlyclinicalcriteria(hemoglobin,bloodurea the endoscopic criteria (AIMS65 and Blatchford scores). nitrogen, systolic blood pressure, pulse and the presence of Katschinski et al. [1]proposedusingForrestclassification, melena, syncope, hepatic disease, or cardiac failure) but no which predicts risk of rebleeding based on endoscopic endoscopic parameters. It has been shown that reliance on stigmata, that actively spurting vessels have the highest clinical parameters alone as is the case with Blatchford score chance of rebleed whereas clean based ulcer has the lowest. does not affect its predictive value in determining the need for 2 Gastroenterology Research and Practice urgent therapeutic intervention [5]. It has also been shown Table 1: Depiction of etiologies of bleeding in cirrhotics and by Blatchford et al. that this scoring system was better than noncirrhotics, respectively. Rockall score in predicting rebleeding and mortality as well Etiology of bleeding Cirrhotics Noncirrhotics value [4]. AIMS65 score is scoring system that does not include endoscopic criteria and has been put forth as a good predictor Esophageal varices (%) 56 (36.8) NA NA of length of stay, cost of hospitalization, and mortality [6]. Out Peptic ulcer disease (%) 71 (46) 553 (50.1) 0.4375 ∗ of the two common scoring systems not including endoscopic Esophagitis (%) 20 (13.1) 426 (38.6) 0.0001 ∗ criteria AIMS65 outscored Blatchford score in predicting Mallory-Weiss tear (%) 5 (3.3) 124 (11.2) 0.0015 ∗ inpatient mortality from UGIB [7]. value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Clinical criteria included in computing these prediction scores often are confounded by existence of multiple coexist- ing comorbidities such as liver dysfunction and heart failure. Table 2: Distribution of etiologies of cirrhosis among study subjects. Blatchford and Rockall scores include and give weightage Etiology of liver cirrhosis Number (%) to these comorbidities unlike AIMS65 score. Multiple stud- ies have shown that AIMS65 singularly predicted few or Hepatitis-C 107 (70.4) ETOH 43 (28.3) all of the outcome measures in UGIB such as timing of ∗ endoscopy intervention, mortality, length of stay, and cost Cryptogenic (probably NAFLD ) 2 (1.3) ∗ of hospitalization [8–10]. Preliminary data from Dekonda et Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. al., comparing AIMS65 with preendoscopic Rockall score, showed that AIMS65 score was better at predicting the risk of rebleeding and inpatient mortality. Table 3: Baseline demographic, biochemical, and liver disease severity scores among cirrhotic patients. Patients with advanced liver disease often have hyperdy- namic circulation with low blood pressure and systemic vas- Variable Mean (±SD§) cular resistance secondary to undermetabolized circulating Age 54.78 (12.95) vasodilators [11, 12]. Patients with advanced liver disease can INR 1.41 (0.49) also have impaired mentation from metabolic encephalopa- Albumin 2.76 (0.79) thy resulting from increased circulating levels of ammonia and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) [13, 14]. Impaired Serum creatinine 1.83 (1.87) syntheticfunctioninadvancedliverdiseasecouldmani- Total serum bilirubin 3.11 (2.99) fest as decreased serum albumin and deranged coagulation AST 93.97 (110.03) profile (elevated prothrombin time). Therefore, theoretically ALT¥ 65.66 (105.22) AIMS65scorescouldbeelevatedinpatientswithadvanced MELD scoreC 10.09 (4.54) liver disease at baseline. AIMS65 score does not provide MELD score in variceal 9.05 (4.39) additional scoring points to the presence of chronic liver bleeders ∗ value = 0.006 disease. High mortality in patients with increased AIMS65 MELD score in 10.7 (2.9) scores could therefore be a function of underlying severe liver nonvariceal bleeders disease itself, rather than that of UGIB. §Standard deviation. International normalized ratio. In this retrospective study, we intended to see the cor- relation between the AIMS65 score and Endoscopic Rockall Aspartate aminotransferase. ¥Alanine aminotransferase. score. We looked at this correlation in cirrhotic patients and CModel for end-stage liver disease. ∗ noncirrhotic patients separately. We wanted to examine the value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. potential confounding role that underlying advanced liver disease could play while computing and interpreting AIMS65 scores. study patients were divided into two groups: patients with cirrhosis and patients without cirrhosis. 2. Methods and Materials Baseline demographic data including age, gender, and ethnicity were collected for all patients in the study. AIMS65 2.1. Patients. This retrospective study was performed accord- scores were calculated at the time of admission. Endoscopic ing to the Declaration of Helsinki with the Institution findings of each patient were reviewed and a weighted score ReviewBoard(IRB)approvalatthestudylocation.The was given as per Rockall Criteria. A separate weighted score period of study was five years from 2008 to 2012. Electronic for endoscopic stigmata of bleeding where applicable, as per medical records of all patients admitted to the hospital with Forrest classification (for ulcer bleeding only), was given as overt UGIB who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy well. Etiologies of bleeding in cirrhotics and noncirrhotics (EGD) were included in the study. The data was tabulated (Table 1); etiologies of cirrhosis amongst patients included in Microsoft Excel. The patients who had minimal, self- in the study (Table 2); and their baseline demographic, limited UGIB not requiring a diagnostic or interventional biochemical, and liver disease severity scores at the time of endoscopic procedure were excluded from the study. The admission were collected (Table 3). Gastroenterology Research and Practice 3 2.2. Evaluation of