Outcome of nonsurgical intervention in patients with perforated peptic ulcers

Factors influencing outcome in patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease at a South African tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in low to middle income countries. This study aimed to scrutinise the clinical course of patients diagnosed with PPU and identify modifiable factors to improve outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the hybrid electronic medical record (HEMR) database at Grey's Hospital was performed. All patients diagnosed with PPU between January 2013 and December 2020 were entered into the study. The variables collected include age, ethnicity, comorbid profile, Boey score, type of surgery performed and complications. These factors were analysed to determine the factors responsible for morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety four patients were diagnosed with PPU during the study period. Six patients were treated non-operatively, all of whom survived. In the surgically treated group, omental patch repair was performed in 159 (84.5%) patients, and primary closure in 26 (13.8%) patients. The leak rate was 32% in the cohort that underwent relaparotomy and the overall mortality was 14%. There was no significant relationship between the type of repair performed and outcome. All patients had a Boey score of 1 or more. The following factors were found to increase the probability of in-hospital mortality: age > 40 years (OR: 8.49, 95% CI 2.46-29.29 p < 0.01), female gender (OR: 2.509, CI 0.98-6.37, p = 0.048), need for relaparotomy (OR: 0.398, CI 0.17-0.91, p = 0.027) and Boey score > 1 (OR: 46.437, CI 6.13-350.28, p < 0.01). A Boey score > 1 was the only variable that increased the likelihood of finding a leaking repair at relaparotomy (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The Boey score was a significant predictor of mortality and leak rate in our patients with PPU. Adding age as a variable may improve the ability to predict mortality in our setting, while the impact of gender and ethnicity needs further investigation.

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

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.

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

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.

Safety Issues in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan with Retention of Olympus Long Clips in the Gastrointestinal Tract

OBJECTIVE

Not all endoscopic clips are compatible with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study is to investigate the safety of MRI-incompatible endoscopic clips in patients undergoing MRI scans.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had received endoscopic clip placement of Olympus Long Clip MRI-incompatible clips and then had undergone MRI scans within two weeks in our hospital between 2014 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 44,292 patients had undergone an MRI examination at our hospital. Only 15 patients had MRI scans within two weeks after the endoscopic clip placement. Their median age was 65.5 years, and 12 of the 15 patients were men. At the time of the clip placement and MRI scan, four patients were taking anti-coagulation or anti-platelet agents. The indication for endoscopic clip placement of the 15 patients was mucosal/submucosal defect or hemorrhage and colonic perforation. Endoscopic clips were placed in the colon of 14 patients and in the stomach of only one patient for gastric hemorrhage. One patient experienced clip migration and three displayed artifacts in abdominal images. No patient complications of mortality, hemorrhage, or organ perforation occurred.

CONCLUSION

No serious adverse event occurred during MRI scans of patients with MRI-incompatible clips in this study, suggesting that MRI-incompatible clips may be safe to use in MRI scans. However, this does not guarantee the safety of the Long Clip for MRI scans, as further tests are needed to verify that this clip is safe for use during MRI.

Treatment of subhepatic abscess due to complicated perforation of gastric ulcer

Formation of abdominal abscesses with perforated ulcers of the stomach and duodenum with conservative treatment ranges from 3% to 14%. The main strategy for their treatment is a minimally invasive puncture treatment. A case of a patient’s late treatment of 56 years with a perforated giant gastric ulcer, the formation of a subhepatic abscess and its drainage into the lumen of the stomach is presented. Used methods of drainage of an abscess through a mini-access under the control of gastroscopy. A complex of therapeutic measures has been described, which allowed for the obliteration of an abscess cavity and the healing of a giant stomach ulcer within a month. It is concluded that the need for early use of gastroscopy in the differential diagnosis of perforated ulcers.

The case series of peritonitis due to perforated peptic ulcer: How does conservative management play role?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical intervention is a conventional treatment for perforated peptic ulcer patients. This study aims to determine whether and how conservative non-operative management plays role in patients with pneumoperitoneum-peritonitis due to perforated peptic ulcers.

METHODS

A 9-year retrospective study was conducted in patients, who visit one surgeon service, with peritonitis due to perforated peptic ulcer and received non-operation conservative treatment. The treatment consists of nasogastric suction, intravenous fluid (IV) resuscitation, IV antibiotic and IV omeprazole. Outcomes and clinical course of conservative treatment in the selected group were reviewed. Factors associated with those outcomes and clinical course were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 38 patients in this case series. Of which, 36 patients (94.7%) showed improvement after 24 h of conservative treatment and discharged without operation. Two patients underwent laparotomy in the 3^rd day of admission due to severe abdominal pain and progression of abdominal sign. There was no mortality in this case series. The conservative series had shorter hospital stay and lesser complication but prolong fever. Three factors indicated good outcomes in this series were found i.e. 1) free air in abdominal x-ray was not broader than the 1^st lumbar vertebral column height, 2) no free fluid seen in intra-peritoneal cavity by bedside ultrasound, 3) resuscitate fluid in the first 24 h was not more than 5 ml/kg/h.

CONCLUSION

In this case series, conservative non-surgical management showed good results for patients with peptic ulcers perforation. It could be used as an effective alternative modality when carefully patient selection and closely observed.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

ᅟ

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).

Methods

The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.

Results

CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann’s procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.

With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.

Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.

Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.

Conclusions

The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.