A Comparative Study between Peptic Ulcer Perforation Score, Mannheim Peritonitis Index, ASA Score, and Jabalpur Score in Predicting the Mortality in Perforated Peptic Ulcers.

Pub Date : 2022-08-02 eCollection Date: 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1743526
Aboli Koranne, K G Byakodi, Vasant Teggimani, Vijay V Kamat, Abhijith Hiregoudar
{"title":"A Comparative Study between Peptic Ulcer Perforation Score, Mannheim Peritonitis Index, ASA Score, and Jabalpur Score in Predicting the Mortality in Perforated Peptic Ulcers.","authors":"Aboli Koranne,&nbsp;K G Byakodi,&nbsp;Vasant Teggimani,&nbsp;Vijay V Kamat,&nbsp;Abhijith Hiregoudar","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1743526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Peptic ulcer disease continues to be a major public health in most developing countries despite the advances in medical management. The incidence of perforations remains high and has the highest mortality rate of any complication of ulcer disease. Risk stratification of cases will lead to better preoperative management and efficient utilization of intensive care unit resources. The purpose of the present study is to compare different existing scoring systems and identify the most accurate predictor of mortality in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) cases. <b>Materials and Methods</b>  This is an observational study conducted in Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, India. All cases of PPU disease admitted from December 2017 to August 2019 who were treated surgically were included in the study. Demographic data were collected and peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score, Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and Jabalpur score (JS) were calculated for individual patient and compared. The patient was followed up during the postoperative period. <b>Observation</b>  A total of 45 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 42.5 years. Most of the patients presented with 24 hours of the onset of symptoms. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use was noted in 8.9% patients, and steroid use was present in 2.2% patients. Of the 45 patients, 7 deaths were reported. Between the various scoring systems, the MPI and JS were better predictors of mortality with a <i>p</i> -value of <0.001 and 0.007, respectively. In contrast, the PULP and ASA scores had <i>p</i> -value not statistically significant. However, the PULP score was a better predictor of postoperative complication with a <i>p</i> -value of 0.047. <b>Conclusion</b>  Of the four scoring systems validated, the MPI and JS were better predictors of mortality in the given population. PULP score is a better predictor of postoperative complications in the present study.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9345676/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1743526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction  Peptic ulcer disease continues to be a major public health in most developing countries despite the advances in medical management. The incidence of perforations remains high and has the highest mortality rate of any complication of ulcer disease. Risk stratification of cases will lead to better preoperative management and efficient utilization of intensive care unit resources. The purpose of the present study is to compare different existing scoring systems and identify the most accurate predictor of mortality in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) cases. Materials and Methods  This is an observational study conducted in Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, India. All cases of PPU disease admitted from December 2017 to August 2019 who were treated surgically were included in the study. Demographic data were collected and peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score, Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and Jabalpur score (JS) were calculated for individual patient and compared. The patient was followed up during the postoperative period. Observation  A total of 45 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 42.5 years. Most of the patients presented with 24 hours of the onset of symptoms. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use was noted in 8.9% patients, and steroid use was present in 2.2% patients. Of the 45 patients, 7 deaths were reported. Between the various scoring systems, the MPI and JS were better predictors of mortality with a p -value of <0.001 and 0.007, respectively. In contrast, the PULP and ASA scores had p -value not statistically significant. However, the PULP score was a better predictor of postoperative complication with a p -value of 0.047. Conclusion  Of the four scoring systems validated, the MPI and JS were better predictors of mortality in the given population. PULP score is a better predictor of postoperative complications in the present study.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享
查看原文
消化性溃疡穿孔评分、Mannheim腹膜炎指数、ASA评分和Jabalpur评分预测消化性溃疡穿孔死亡率的比较研究
尽管在医疗管理方面取得了进步,消化性溃疡疾病仍然是大多数发展中国家的主要公共卫生问题。溃疡穿孔的发生率仍然很高,是溃疡并发症中死亡率最高的。对病例进行风险分层,可以改善术前管理,有效利用重症监护病房资源。本研究的目的是比较不同的现有评分系统,并确定最准确的预测死亡率的穿孔性消化性溃疡(PPU)病例。材料与方法本研究是在印度胡布利卡纳塔克邦医学科学研究所进行的一项观察性研究。2017年12月至2019年8月接受手术治疗的所有PPU病例纳入研究。收集人口学资料,计算个体患者消化性溃疡穿孔(PULP)评分、Mannheim腹膜炎指数(MPI)、美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)评分和Jabalpur评分(JS)并进行比较。术后随访患者。观察共纳入45例患者,平均年龄42.5岁。大多数患者在发病24小时内出现症状。8.9%的患者使用非甾体类抗炎药,2.2%的患者使用类固醇。在45例患者中,报告有7例死亡。在各种评分系统中,MPI和JS是较好的死亡率预测因子,p值p值无统计学意义。然而,PULP评分能更好地预测术后并发症,p值为0.047。结论在验证的四种评分系统中,MPI和JS能更好地预测给定人群的死亡率。在本研究中,PULP评分能更好地预测术后并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信