Literature DB >> 33825122

Outcomes of Nonoperative Treatment for Gastroduodenal Ulcer Perforation: a Nationwide Study of 14,918 Inpatients in Japan.

Takaaki Konishi1,2, Michimasa Fujiogi3,4, Nobuaki Michihata5, Ryosuke Kumazawa3, Hiroki Matsui3, Kiyohide Fushimi6, Masahiko Tanabe7, Yasuyuki Seto7,8, Hideo Yasunaga3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gastroduodenal ulcer perforation is a common abdominal emergency that may be curable without surgical repair in non-elderly patients with localized and stable symptoms. However, the outcomes of nonoperative approaches have rarely been described.
METHODS: Using a Japanese national inpatient database, we identified 14,918 patients with gastroduodenal ulcer perforation who were hospitalized and received nonoperative treatment from July 2010 to March 2017. We categorized these patients into three groups according to age: 18 to 64 years (young group, n=8407), 65 to 74 years (old group, n=2616), and ≥75 years (old-old group, n=3895). We investigated the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes in each group.
RESULTS: Most of the patients were men (71%), and the median patient age was 62 years (interquartile range, 47-75 years). The old and old-old groups had more comorbidities than the young group. Whereas most patients were administered proton pump inhibitors and various antibiotics (96% and 90%, respectively), only 58% of patients underwent gastric tube placement. Surgical repair >3 days after admission was performed in 7.1% of all patients (6.3% vs. 7.9% vs. 5.5%, P<0.001). The old and old-old groups showed higher mortality (1.4% vs. 8.3% vs. 18%, P<0.001) and morbidity (6.6% vs. 15% vs. 17%, P<0.001) than the young group. The median length of stay was almost 2 weeks (13 vs. 17 vs. 20 days, P<0.001). DISCUSSION: Unlike previous studies, many patients aged >65 years received nonoperative treatment in this nationwide cohort. Our findings provide useful information for clinicians and patients hospitalized for gastric ulcer perforation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aged population; Duodenal ulcer; Mortality; Peptic ulcer perforation; Stomach ulcer

Year:  2021        PMID: 33825122     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-05003-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  15 in total

1.  Nonoperative management for perforated peptic ulcer: who can benefit?

Authors:  Feng Cao; Jia Li; Ang Li; Yu Fang; Ya-Jun Wang; Fei Li
Journal:  Asian J Surg       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 2.767

2.  Multicentre trial of a perioperative protocol to reduce mortality in patients with peptic ulcer perforation.

Authors:  M H Møller; S Adamsen; R W Thomsen; A M Møller
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  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.

Authors:  K Anbalakan; D Chua; G J Pandya; V G Shelat
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2015-01-02       Impact factor: 6.071

4.  Laparoscopic omental patch for perforated peptic ulcer disease reduces length of stay and complications, compared to open surgery: A SWSC multicenter study.

Authors:  Adel Alhaj Saleh; Esteban C Esquivel; John T Lung; Barbara C Eaton; Brandon R Bruns; Galinos Barmparas; Daniel R Margulies; Alexander Raines; Cressilee Bryant; Christopher E Crane; Elizabeth P Scherer; Thomas J Schroeppel; Eliza Moskowitz; Justin Regner; Richard Frazee; Eric M Campion; Matthew Bartley; Jared Mortus; Jeremy Ward; Mhd Hasan Almekdash; Sharmila Dissanaike
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Accuracy of clinical prediction rules in peptic ulcer perforation: an observational study.

Authors:  David Levarett Buck; Morten Vester-Andersen; Morten Hylander Møller
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 2.423

6.  The Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) score: a predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation. A cohort study.

Authors:  M H Møller; M C Engebjerg; S Adamsen; J Bendix; R W Thomsen
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 2.105

7.  Perforated peptic ulcer: main factors of morbidity and mortality.

Authors:  Carlos Noguiera; António Sérgio Silva; Jorge Nunes Santos; António Gomes Silva; Joaquim Ferreira; Eduarda Matos; Hernani Vilaça
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Perforated peptic ulcer over 56 years. Time trends in patients and disease characteristics.

Authors:  C Svanes; H Salvesen; L Stangeland; K Svanes; O Søreide
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  Outcome of nonsurgical intervention in patients with perforated peptic ulcers.

Authors:  Ping-Lien Lay; Hsin-Hung Huang; Wei-Kuo Chang; Tsai-Yuan Hsieh; Tien-Yu Huang; Hsuan-Hwai Lin
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 2.469

Review 10.  Perforated peptic ulcer.

Authors:  Kjetil Søreide; Kenneth Thorsen; Ewen M Harrison; Juliane Bingener; Morten H Møller; Michael Ohene-Yeboah; Jon Arne Søreide
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.