الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 144 |  |  |
| | | from | 144 | | |
Abstract
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common and potentially life-threatening emergency that may require hospitalization and resuscitation. It remains a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The etiology and outcome of UGIB varies significantly in different geographic regions depending on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the local population. Causes of UGIB have been classified as variceal and non variceal. The initial evaluation of these patients with UGIB for hemodynamic stability is essential. Early aggressive resuscitation of a hemodynamically unstable patient can reduce mortality in acute UGIB. The effective treatment depends on identification of the source of the bleeding and expeditious administration of therapy. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the preferred investigative procedure for UGIB because of its accuracy, low rate of complication and its potential for therapeutic interventions. Risk stratification and decision to perform interventions including therapeutic endoscopy is often a subjective matter, and the threshold to intervene might differ between different physicians. Multiple scoring systems have been developed to predict the outcomes of these patients. The most common one is the Rockall score (RS), application of which in clinical practice is complex because it includes many variables. The search for a pre-endoscopic clinically applicable score to predict high- and low-risk patients has led to the development of other scores, such as the Glasgow–Blatchford score (GBS) and the AIMS65 score. The GBS is based on clinical and laboratory parameters. The main drawback of the GBS and the RS is their difficult day to day application. Thus, the AIMS65 has recently been validated to predict in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs. AIMS65 has some important advantages: first, it has been developed from a large database and is not weighted, which makes it easy to remember in everyday practice; second, it does not rely on patient’s medical history, but on laboratory values in addition to the patient’s mental status.