Abstract
Background
Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) causes peritonitis and requires surgery based on disease severity. This study aimed to develop and validate a severity scale for PPU with generalized peritonitis.Materials and methods
This retrospective cohort study used a nationwide multi-center surgical database (2013-2020). Patients aged >15 years who underwent surgery for PPU with generalized peritonitis were included and categorized into the derivation (2013-2018) and two validation (2019 and 2020) cohorts. Possible severity predictors were selected via a literature review, and Lasso models were developed to predict severe postoperative adverse events with 2000 bootstrapping. Final variables for the scoring system were determined based on inclusion frequency (≥90%) in the Lasso models. Discrimination and accuracy were evaluated using c-statistics and calibration plots. Cutoff values for minimal postoperative adverse events were examined using negative predictive values.Results
Among 12,513 patients included (1,202 underwent laparoscopic surgery), 533 (5.9%), 138 (7.6%), and 117 (6.9%) in the derivation and two validation cohorts experienced postoperative adverse events. Age, dyspnea at rest, preoperative sepsis, III/IV/V of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and albumin and creatinine were selected for the final model. A 0-11 scoring system was developed with c-statistics of 0.812-0.819. Cutoff value was determined as 5, which predicted <3% probability of postoperative adverse events regardless of type of surgery.Conclusions
A score of <5 predicts minimal risks for postoperative adverse events and therefore would be clinically useful to determine type of surgery. Further studies are needed to validate the score.References
Articles referenced by this article (35)
Sample size calculation to externally validate scoring systems based on logistic regression models.
PLoS One, (5):e0176726 2017
MED: 28459847
Validation in prediction research: the waste by data splitting.
J Clin Epidemiol, 131-133 2018
MED: 30063954
Predicting in-hospital mortality risk for perforated peptic ulcer surgery: the PPUMS scoring system and the benefit of laparoscopic surgery: a population-based study.
Surg Endosc, (9):6834-6843 2023
MED: 37308764
Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is not prognostic factor for 30-day mortality (a nationwide prospective cohort study).
Int J Surg, 47-54 2019
MED: 31639454
Residual mass histology in testicular cancer: development and validation of a clinical prediction rule.
Stat Med, (24):3847-3859 2001
MED: 11782038
A comparison of model selection methods for prediction in the presence of multiply imputed data.
Biom J, (2):343-356 2018
MED: 30353591
The Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) score: a predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation. A cohort study.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, (5):655-662 2011
MED: 22191386
Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair.
J Gastrointest Surg, (3):618-625 2018
MED: 30465190
Show 10 more references (10 of 35)
Similar Articles
To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.
Predicting in-hospital mortality risk for perforated peptic ulcer surgery: the PPUMS scoring system and the benefit of laparoscopic surgery: a population-based study.
Surg Endosc, 37(9):6834-6843, 12 Jun 2023
Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 37308764
Five year experience in management of perforated peptic ulcer and validation of common mortality risk prediction models - are existing models sufficient? A retrospective cohort study.
Int J Surg, 14:38-44, 02 Jan 2015
Cited by: 28 articles | PMID: 25560748
Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach.
Surg Endosc, 37(7):5137-5149, 21 Mar 2023
Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 36944740 | PMCID: PMC10030074
Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 21:25, 10 Apr 2013
Cited by: 38 articles | PMID: 23574922 | PMCID: PMC3626602
Review Free full text in Europe PMC