Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2023

12-06-2023 | Laparotomy

Predicting in-hospital mortality risk for perforated peptic ulcer surgery: the PPUMS scoring system and the benefit of laparoscopic surgery: a population-based study

Authors: Yi-Kai Huang, Kun-Ta Wu, Yi-Shan Su, Chung-Yen Chen, Jian-Han Chen

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 9/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The major treatment for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) is surgery. It remains unclear which patient may not get benefit from surgery due to comorbidity. This study aimed to generate a scoring system by predicting mortality for patients with PPU who received non-operative management (NOM) and surgical treatment.

Method

We extracted the admission data of adult (≥ 18 years) patients with PPU disease from the NHIRD database. We randomly divided patients into 80% model derivation and 20% validation cohorts. Multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model was applied to generate the scoring system, PPUMS. We then apply the scoring system to the validation group.

Result

The PPUMS score ranged from 0 to 8 points, composite with age (< 45: 0 points, 45–65: 1 point, 65–80: 2 points, > 80: 3 points), and five comorbidities (congestive heart failure, severe liver disease, renal disease, history of malignancy, and obesity: 1 point each). The areas under ROC curve were 0.785 and 0.787 in the derivation and validation groups. The in-hospital mortality rates in the derivation group were 0.6% (0 points), 3.4% (1 point), 9.0% (2 points), 19.0% (3 points), 30.2% (4 points), and 45.9% when PPUMS > 4 point. Patients with PPUMS > 4 had a similar in-hospital mortality risk between the surgery group [laparotomy: odds ratio (OR) = 0.729, p = 0.320, laparoscopy: OR = 0.772, p = 0.697] and the non-surgery group. We identified similar results in the validation group.

Conclusion

PPUMS scoring system effectively predicts in-hospital mortality for perforated peptic ulcer patients. It factors in age and specific comorbidities is highly predictive and well-calibrated with a reliable AUC of 0.785–0.787. Surgery, no matter laparotomy or laparoscope, significantly reduced mortality for scores <  = 4. However, patients with a score > 4 did not show this difference, calling for tailored approaches to treatment based on risk assessment. Further prospective validation is suggested.
Literature
1.
2.
Lau JY, Sung J, Hill C, Henderson C, Howden CW, Metz DC (2011) Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion 84:102–113PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
5.
Moller MH, Adamsen S, Thomsen RW, Moller AM, Peptic Ulcer Perforation trial group (2011) Multicentre trial of a perioperative protocol to reduce mortality in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. Br J Surg 98:802–810PubMedCrossRef
6.
Kim JM, Jeong SH, Lee YJ, Park ST, Choi SK, Hong SC, Jung EJ, Ju YT, Jeong CY, Ha WS (2012) Analysis of risk factors for postoperative morbidity in perforated peptic ulcer. J Gastric Cancer 12:26–35PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Moller MH, Engebjerg MC, Adamsen S, Bendix J, Thomsen RW (2012) The peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score: a predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation A cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56:655–662PubMedCrossRef
8.
Crofts TJ, Park KG, Steele RJ, Chung SS, Li AK (1989) A randomized trial of non-operative treatment for perforated peptic ulcer. N Engl J Med 320:970–973PubMedCrossRef
9.
Tarasconi A, Coccolini F, Biffl WL, Tomasoni M, Ansaloni L, Picetti E, Molfino S, Shelat V, Cimbanassi S, Weber DG, Abu-Zidan FM, Campanile FC, Di Saverio S, Baiocchi GL, Casella C, Kelly MD, Kirkpatrick AW, Leppaniemi A, Moore EE, Peitzman A, Fraga GP, Ceresoli M, Maier RV, Wani I, Pattonieri V, Perrone G, Velmahos G, Sugrue M, Sartelli M, Kluger Y, Catena F (2020) Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg 15:3PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Oida T, Kano H, Mimatsu K, Kawasaki A, Kuboi Y, Fukino N, Kida K, Amano S (2012) Percutaneous drainage in conservative therapy for perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. Hepatogastroenterology 59:168–170PubMed
11.
Songne B, Jean F, Foulatier O, Khalil H, Scotte M (2004) Non operative treatment for perforated peptic ulcer: results of a prospective study. Ann Chir 129:578–582PubMedCrossRef
12.
Tanaka R, Kosugi S, Sakamoto K, Yajima K, Ishikawa T, Kanda T, Wakai T (2013) Treatment for perforated gastric ulcer: a multi-institutional retrospective review. J Gastrointest Surg 17:2074–2081PubMedCrossRef
13.
Bucher P, Oulhaci W, Morel P, Ris F, Huber O (2007) Results of conservative treatment for perforated gastroduodenal ulcers in patients not eligible for surgical repair. Swiss Med Wkly 137:337–340PubMed
14.
Lay PL, Huang HH, Chang WK, Hsieh TY, Huang TY, Lin HH (2016) Outcome of nonsurgical intervention in patients with perforated peptic ulcers. Am J Emerg Med 34:1556–1560PubMedCrossRef
15.
Alizadeh N, Buhler L, Huber O, Morel P (1997) Conservative treatment of gastroduodenal peptic ulcer perforations: indications and results. Schweiz Med Wochenschr Suppl 89:17S-19SPubMed
16.
Bergamaschi R, Marvik R, Johnsen G, Thoresen JE, Ystgaard B, Myrvold HE (1999) Open vs laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Surg Endosc 13:679–682PubMedCrossRef
17.
Bertleff MJ, Lange JF (2010) Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature. Surg Endosc 24:1231–1239PubMedCrossRef
18.
Leusink A, Markar SR, Wiggins T, Mackenzie H, Faiz O, Hanna GB (2018) Laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: an English national population-based cohort study. Surg Endosc 32:3783–3788PubMedCrossRef
19.
Lohsiriwat V, Prapasrivorakul S, Lohsiriwat D (2009) Perforated peptic ulcer: clinical presentation, surgical outcomes, and the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality. World J Surg 33:80–85PubMedCrossRef
20.
Agarwal A, Jain S, Meena LN, Jain SA, Agarwal L (2015) Validation of Boey’s score in predicting morbidity and mortality in peptic perforation peritonitis in Northwestern India. Trop Gastroenterol 36:256–260PubMedCrossRef
21.
Huang KW, Luo JC, Leu HB, Lin HC, Lee FY, Chan WL, Lin SJ, Chen JW, Chang FY (2012) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an independent risk factor for peptic ulcer bleeding: a nationwide population-based study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 35:796–802PubMedCrossRef
22.
Johnston LE, Grimm JC, Magruder JT, Shah AS (2016) Development of a transplantation risk index in patients with mechanical circulatory support: a decision support tool. JACC Heart failure 4:277–286PubMedCrossRef
23.
Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251PubMedCrossRef
24.
Austin PC, Lee DS, D’Agostino RB, Fine JP (2016) Developing points-based risk-scoring systems in the presence of competing risks. Stat Med 35:4056–4072PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
26.
Bin-Taleb AK, Razzaq RA, Al-Kathiri ZO (2008) Management of perforated peptic ulcer in patients at a teaching hospital. Saudi Med J 29:245–250PubMed
27.
Blomgren LG (1997) Perforated peptic ulcer: long-term results after simple closure in the elderly. World J Surg 21:412–414PubMedCrossRef
28.
Daniel VT, Wiseman JT, Flahive J, Santry HP (2017) Predictors of mortality in the elderly after open repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. J Surg Res 215:108–113PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Seow JG, Lim YR, Shelat VG (2017) Low serum albumin may predict the need for gastric resection in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 43:293–298PubMedCrossRef
30.
Sillakivi T, Lang A, Tein A, Peetsalu A (2000) Evaluation of risk factors for mortality in surgically treated perforated peptic ulcer. Hepatogastroenterology 47:1765–1768PubMed
31.
Bas G, Eryilmaz R, Okan I, Sahin M (2008) Risk factors of morbidity and mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Acta Chir Belg 108:424–427PubMedCrossRef
32.
Soreide K, Thorsen K, Soreide JA (2014) Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 101:e51-64PubMedCrossRef
33.
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13:818–829PubMedCrossRef
34.
Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F (1993) A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 270:2957–2963PubMedCrossRef
35.
Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, Avrunin JS, Gehlbach SH, Rapoport J (1993) Mortality probability models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA 270:2478–2486PubMedCrossRef
36.
Li YT, Wang YC, Yang SF, Law YY, Shiu BH, Chen TA, Wu SC, Lu MC (2022) Risk factors and prognoses of invasive Candida infection in surgical critical ill patients with perforated peptic ulcer. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 55:740–748PubMedCrossRef
37.
Li CH, Bair MJ, Chang WH, Shih SC, Lin SC, Yeh CY (2009) Predictive model for length of hospital stay of patients surviving surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. J Formos Med Assoc 108:644–652PubMedCrossRef
38.
Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78:355–360PubMedCrossRef
39.
Thorsen K, Soreide JA, Soreide K (2014) What is the best predictor of mortality in perforated peptic ulcer disease? A population-based, multivariable regression analysis including three clinical scoring systems. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1261–1268PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Bharadwaj S, Ginoya S, Tandon P, Gohel TD, Guirguis J, Vallabh H, Jevenn A, Hanouneh I (2016) Malnutrition: laboratory markers vs nutritional assessment. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 4:272–280PubMed
41.
Soeters PB, Wolfe RR, Shenkin A (2019) Hypoalbuminemia: pathogenesis and clinical significance. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 43:181–193PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Wang HE, Griffin R, Judd S, Shapiro NI, Safford MM (2013) Obesity and risk of sepsis: a population-based cohort study. Obesity (Silver Spring) 21:E762-769PubMedCrossRef
44.
Winfield RD, Reese S, Bochicchio K, Mazuski JE, Bochicchio GV (2016) Obesity and the risk for surgical site infection in abdominal surgery. Am Surg 82:331–336PubMedCrossRef
45.
Kaspersen KA, Pedersen OB, Petersen MS, Hjalgrim H, Rostgaard K, Moller BK, Juul-Sorensen C, Kotze S, Dinh KM, Erikstrup LT, Sorensen E, Thorner LW, Burgdorf KS, Ullum H, Erikstrup C (2015) Obesity and risk of infection: results from the Danish Blood Donor Study. Epidemiology 26:580–589PubMedCrossRef
46.
Carbone F, La Rocca C, De Candia P, Procaccini C, Colamatteo A, Micillo T, De Rosa V, Matarese G (2016) Metabolic control of immune tolerance in health and autoimmunity. Semin Immunol 28:491–504PubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
Thorsen K, Glomsaker TB, von Meer A, Soreide K, Soreide JA (2011) Trends in diagnosis and surgical management of patients with perforated peptic ulcer. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1329–1335PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Siow SL, Mahendran HA, Wong CM, Hardin M, Luk TL (2018) Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: Improving outcomes utilizing a standardized technique. Asian J Surg 41:136–142PubMedCrossRef
50.
Tan S, Wu G, Zhuang Q, Xi Q, Meng Q, Jiang Y, Han Y, Yu C, Yu Z, Li N (2016) Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 33:124–132PubMedCrossRef
51.
Rahman MM, Islam MS, Flora S, Akhter SF, Hossain S, Karim F (2007) Mortality in perforated peptic ulcer patients after selective management of stratified poor risk cases. World J Surg 31:2341–2344PubMedCrossRef
52.
Gouta EL, Dougaz W, Khalfallah M, Bouasker I, Dziri C (2018) Management of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer treated by suture. Tunis Med 96:424–429PubMed
53.
Alemrajabi M, Safari S, Tizmaghz A, Alemrajabi F, Shabestanipour G (2016) Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: outcome and associated morbidity and mortality. Electron Physician 8:2543–2545PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
55.
Zimmermann M, Hoffmann M, Laubert T, Jung C, Bruch HP, Schloericke E (2015) Conversion of laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: a single-center study. Surg Today 45:1421–1428PubMedCrossRef
56.
Lau H (2004) Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 18:1013–1021PubMedCrossRef
57.
Vaidya BB, Garg CP, Shah JB (2009) Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer with delayed presentation. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:153–156PubMedCrossRef
58.
Guadagni S, Cengeli I, Galatioto C, Furbetta N, Piero VL, Zocco G, Seccia M (2014) Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results. Surg Endosc 28:2302–2308PubMedCrossRef
59.
Zogovic S, Bojesen AB, Andos S, Mortensen FV (2019) Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is not prognostic factor for 30-day mortality (a nationwide prospective cohort study). Int J Surg 72:47–54PubMedCrossRef
60.
Smith RS, Sundaramurthy SR, Croagh D (2019) Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a retrospective cohort study. Asian J Endosc Surg 12:139–144PubMedCrossRef
61.
Karabulut K, Dincer M, Liman RK, Usta S (2019) Non-operative management of perforated peptic ulcer: a single-center experience. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 25:585–588PubMed
Metadata
Title
Predicting in-hospital mortality risk for perforated peptic ulcer surgery: the PPUMS scoring system and the benefit of laparoscopic surgery: a population-based study
Authors
Yi-Kai Huang
Kun-Ta Wu
Yi-Shan Su
Chung-Yen Chen
Jian-Han Chen
Publication date
12-06-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 9/2023
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10180-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2023

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2023 Go to the issue

2023 SAGES Oral

Residents perform better technically, have less stress and workload, and prefer robotic to laparoscopic technique during inanimate simulation

2023 SAGES Oral

Clinical outcomes of elective robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer utilizing a large national database

Review Article

Spontaneous lesser omental herniation resolved by laparoscopic surgery: case report and systematic literature review

2023 SAGES Oral

Losing weight to achieve joint or hernia surgery: is the intragastric balloon the answer?

OriginalPaper

Epinephrine injection monotherapy shows similar hemostatic efficacy to epinephrine injection combined therapy in high-risk patients (Forrest Ib) with bleeding ulcers

OriginalPaper

Single-staged retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction with mesh at the time of ostomy reversal: are we crossing the line? An ACHQC Analysis