INTRODUCTION: We previously derived and validated the AIMS65 score, a mortality 
prognostic scale for upper GI bleeding (UGIB).
OBJECTIVE: To validate the AIMS65 score in a different patient population and 
compare it with the Glasgow-Blatchford risk score (GBRS).
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
PATIENTS: Adults with a primary diagnosis of UGIB.
PRIMARY OUTCOME: inpatient mortality.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES: composite clinical endpoint of inpatient mortality, 
rebleeding, and endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention; blood 
transfusion; intensive care unit admission; rebleeding; length of stay; timing 
of endoscopy. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 
was calculated for each score.
RESULTS: Of the 278 study patients, 6.5% died and 35% experienced the composite 
clinical endpoint. The AIMS65 score was superior in predicting inpatient 
mortality (AUROC, 0.93 vs 0.68; P < .001), whereas the GBRS was superior in 
predicting blood transfusions (AUROC, 0.85 vs 0.65; P < .01) The 2 scores were 
similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint (AUROC, 0.62 vs 0.68; P = 
.13) as well as the secondary outcomes. A GBRS of 10 and 12 or more maximized 
the sum of the sensitivity and specificity for inpatient mortality and 
rebleeding, respectively. The cutoff was 2 or more for the AIMS65 score for both 
outcomes.
LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, single-center study.
CONCLUSION: The AIMS65 score is superior to the GBRS in predicting inpatient 
mortality from UGIB, whereas the GBRS is superior for predicting blood 
transfusion. Both scores are similar in predicting the composite clinical 
endpoint and other outcomes in clinical care and resource use.