Cargando…

Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: Patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) often present with acute, severe illness that carries a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mortality ranges from 3-40% and several prognostic scoring systems have been suggested. The aim of this study was to review the available scoring sys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thorsen, Kenneth, Søreide, Jon Arne, Søreide, Kjetil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626602/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-25
_version_ 1782266211768205312
author Thorsen, Kenneth
Søreide, Jon Arne
Søreide, Kjetil
author_facet Thorsen, Kenneth
Søreide, Jon Arne
Søreide, Kjetil
author_sort Thorsen, Kenneth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) often present with acute, severe illness that carries a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mortality ranges from 3-40% and several prognostic scoring systems have been suggested. The aim of this study was to review the available scoring systems for PPU patients, and to assert if there is evidence to prefer one to the other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for the mesh terms “perforated peptic ulcer”, “scoring systems”, “risk factors”, ”outcome prediction”, “mortality”, ”morbidity” and the combinations of these terms. In addition to relevant scores introduced in the past (e.g. Boey score), we included recent studies published between January 2000 and December 2012) that reported on scoring systems for prediction of morbidity and mortality in PPU patients. RESULTS: A total of ten different scoring systems used to predict outcome in PPU patients were identified; the Boey score, the Hacettepe score, the Jabalpur score the peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score, the ASA score, the Charlson comorbidity index, the sepsis score, the Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), the Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), the Mortality probability models II (MPM II), the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity physical sub-score (POSSUM-phys score). Only four of the scores were specifically constructed for PPU patients. In five studies the accuracy of outcome prediction of different scoring systems was evaluated by receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis, and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) among studies compared. Considerable variation in performance both between different scores and between different studies was found, with the lowest and highest AUC reported between 0.63 and 0.98, respectively. CONCLUSION: While the Boey score and the ASA score are most commonly used to predict outcome for PPU patients, considerable variations in accuracy for outcome prediction were shown. Other scoring systems are hampered by a lack of validation or by their complexity that precludes routine clinical use. While the PULP score seems promising it needs external validation before widespread use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3626602
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36266022013-04-16 Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer Thorsen, Kenneth Søreide, Jon Arne Søreide, Kjetil Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Review BACKGROUND: Patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) often present with acute, severe illness that carries a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mortality ranges from 3-40% and several prognostic scoring systems have been suggested. The aim of this study was to review the available scoring systems for PPU patients, and to assert if there is evidence to prefer one to the other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for the mesh terms “perforated peptic ulcer”, “scoring systems”, “risk factors”, ”outcome prediction”, “mortality”, ”morbidity” and the combinations of these terms. In addition to relevant scores introduced in the past (e.g. Boey score), we included recent studies published between January 2000 and December 2012) that reported on scoring systems for prediction of morbidity and mortality in PPU patients. RESULTS: A total of ten different scoring systems used to predict outcome in PPU patients were identified; the Boey score, the Hacettepe score, the Jabalpur score the peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score, the ASA score, the Charlson comorbidity index, the sepsis score, the Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), the Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), the Mortality probability models II (MPM II), the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity physical sub-score (POSSUM-phys score). Only four of the scores were specifically constructed for PPU patients. In five studies the accuracy of outcome prediction of different scoring systems was evaluated by receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis, and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) among studies compared. Considerable variation in performance both between different scores and between different studies was found, with the lowest and highest AUC reported between 0.63 and 0.98, respectively. CONCLUSION: While the Boey score and the ASA score are most commonly used to predict outcome for PPU patients, considerable variations in accuracy for outcome prediction were shown. Other scoring systems are hampered by a lack of validation or by their complexity that precludes routine clinical use. While the PULP score seems promising it needs external validation before widespread use. BioMed Central 2013-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3626602/ /pubmed/23574922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-25 Text en Copyright © 2013 Thorsen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Thorsen, Kenneth
Søreide, Jon Arne
Søreide, Kjetil
Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer
title Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer
title_full Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer
title_fullStr Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer
title_full_unstemmed Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer
title_short Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer
title_sort scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626602/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-25
work_keys_str_mv AT thorsenkenneth scoringsystemsforoutcomepredictioninpatientswithperforatedpepticulcer
AT søreidejonarne scoringsystemsforoutcomepredictioninpatientswithperforatedpepticulcer
AT søreidekjetil scoringsystemsforoutcomepredictioninpatientswithperforatedpepticulcer