Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Comparative Analysis of Five Risk Scores

Objective: This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of five commonly used clinical scoring systems - albumin, international normalised ratio,altered mental status, systolic blood pressure, age (AIMS65), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, in-hospital onset, albumin <2.5 g/dL, altered mental status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, and steroid use (CHAMPS), age, blood tests, and comorbidities (ABC), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Complete Rockall score (CRS)- in estimating in-hospital mortality among patients presenting with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Materials and Methods: This retrospective, single-center observational study included 917 adult patients diagnosed with non-variceal UGIB between January 2020 and January 2025. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. Each patient’s risk scores (AIMS65, CHAMPS, ABC, GBS, and CRS) were calculated based on admission data. The predictive performance of each scoring system for in-hospital mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and area under the curve (AUC) values were compared using the DeLong test. Results: The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5.2%. AIMS65 demonstrated the highest predictive performance (AUC: 0.815, 95% confidence interval: 0.788-0.840), significantly outperforming GBS (AUC: 0.631, p<0.001) and showing comparable accuracy to CHAMPS (AUC: 0.801, p=0.493). The CHAMPS score also showed good discriminatory power, particularly in high-risk patients. The ABC score (AUC: 0.708) and CRS (AUC: 0.702) demonstrated moderate predictive ability, while GBS had the lowest accuracy. Conclusion: Among the five evaluated scoring systems, AIMS65 exhibited the best performance in predicting in-hospital mortality in non-variceal UGIB patients, followed closely by CHAMPS.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Global Emergency and Critical Care
Published
2025-09-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4274/globecc.galenos.2025.09609
Primary Topic
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Comparative Analysis of Five Risk Scores

Cem Ayan, Ercan GÜRLEVİK
Global Emergency and Critical Care
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Comparative Analysis of Five Risk Scores

Cem Ayan, Ercan GÜRLEVİK
article en

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of five commonly used clinical scoring systems - albumin, international normalised ratio,altered mental status, systolic blood pressure, age (AIMS65), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, in-hospital onset, albumin <2.5 g/dL, altered mental status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, and steroid use (CHAMPS), age, blood tests, and comorbidities (ABC), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Complete Rockall score (CRS)- in estimating in-hospital mortality among patients presenting with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Materials and Methods: This retrospective, single-center observational study included 917 adult patients diagnosed with non-variceal UGIB between January 2020 and January 2025. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. Each patient’s risk scores (AIMS65, CHAMPS, ABC, GBS, and CRS) were calculated based on admission data. The predictive performance of each scoring system for in-hospital mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and area under the curve (AUC) values were compared using the DeLong test. Results: The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 5.2%. AIMS65 demonstrated the highest predictive performance (AUC: 0.815, 95% confidence interval: 0.788-0.840), significantly outperforming GBS (AUC: 0.631, p<0.001) and showing comparable accuracy to CHAMPS (AUC: 0.801, p=0.493). The CHAMPS score also showed good discriminatory power, particularly in high-risk patients. The ABC score (AUC: 0.708) and CRS (AUC: 0.702) demonstrated moderate predictive ability, while GBS had the lowest accuracy. Conclusion: Among the five evaluated scoring systems, AIMS65 exhibited the best performance in predicting in-hospital mortality in non-variceal UGIB patients, followed closely by CHAMPS.

Global Emergency and Critical Care
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Comparative Analysis of Five Risk Scores — Cem Ayan, Ercan GÜRLEVİK · Global Emergency and Critical Care (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS