Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow–Blatchford score, and Rockall score in a European series of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: performance when predicting in‐hospital and delayed mortality

Objective AIMS65 is a score designed to predict in‐hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs of gastrointestinal bleeding. Our aims were to revalidate AIMS65 as predictor of inpatient mortality and to compare AIMS65’s performance with that of Glasgow–Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) with regard to mortality, and the secondary outcomes of a composite endpoint of severity, transfusion requirements, rebleeding, delayed (6‐month) mortality, and length of stay. Methods The study included 309 patients. Clinical and biochemical data, transfusion requirements, endoscopic, surgical, or radiological treatments, and outcomes for 6 months after admission were collected. Clinical outcomes were in‐hospital mortality, delayed mortality, rebleeding, composite endpoint, blood transfusions, and length of stay. Results In receiver‐operating characteristic curve analyses, AIMS65, GBS, and RS were similar when predicting inpatient mortality (0.76 vs. 0.78 vs. 0.78). Regarding endoscopic intervention, AIMS65 and GBS were identical (0.62 vs. 0.62). AIMS65 was useless when predicting rebleeding compared to GBS or RS (0.56 vs. 0.70 vs. 0.71). GBS was better at predicting the need for transfusions. No patient with AIMS65 = 0, GBS ≤ 6, or RS ≤ 4 died. Considering the composite endpoint, an AIMS65 of 0 did not exclude high risk patients, but a GBS ≤ 1 or RS ≤ 2 did. The three scores were similar in predicting prolonged in‐hospital stay. Delayed mortality was better predicted by AIMS65. Conclusion AIMS65 is comparable to GBS and RS in essential endpoints such as inpatient mortality, the need for endoscopic intervention and length of stay. GBS is a better score predicting rebleeding and the need for transfusion, but AIMS65 shows a better performance predicting delayed mortality.