AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightIn our study, the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio was consistent with the AIMS65 score and suggested thatit could be a parameter that could be used in patients with upper gastrointestinal system hemorrhage, but more extensive studiesare needed on this subject.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Aim: Acute upper gastrointestinal system hemorrhage is a common and life-threatening condition, and its mortality may reach 10%despite developing medical facilities. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of the AIMS65 risk scoring and Rockall scoringin the non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage patients and investigate the relationship between C-reactive protein/albuminratio and these scoring systems.Materials and Methods: Forty-two inpatients diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal system hemorrhage in our hospital’s InternalMedicine Department between January 2018 and July 2018 included to study. For each patient, AIMS65 scoring according to the firstevaluation results in the emergency department and Rockall scoring after the endoscopy were performed.Results: Mortality was observed in 2 (4.8%) patients. Both scoring systems were not statistically significant in determining the needfor transfusion and predicting the hospitalization duration. The mean C-reactive protein/albumin ratio of the patients was found tobe 0.94 (0.48-77.83), and C-reactive protein/albumin levels were higher in patients with high AIMS65 score (p=0.005).Conclusion: Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage is a common emergency problem, and it constitutes 80% of all gastrointestinalsystem hemorrhages. In our study, the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio was consistent with the AIMS65 score and suggested thatit could be a parameter that could be used in patients with upper gastrointestinal system hemorrhage, but more extensive studiesare needed on this subject.