Cargando…

Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prediction factors for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). METHODS: At St. Luke’s International Hospital in Tokyo, Japan, a case control study was performed between August 2004 and March 2016. All patients diagnosed with PPU were included. As control...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yamamoto, Kazuki, Takahashi, Osamu, Arioka, Hiroko, Kobayashi, Daiki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815199/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29448921
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0756-4
_version_ 1783300458980311040
author Yamamoto, Kazuki
Takahashi, Osamu
Arioka, Hiroko
Kobayashi, Daiki
author_facet Yamamoto, Kazuki
Takahashi, Osamu
Arioka, Hiroko
Kobayashi, Daiki
author_sort Yamamoto, Kazuki
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prediction factors for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). METHODS: At St. Luke’s International Hospital in Tokyo, Japan, a case control study was performed between August 2004 and March 2016. All patients diagnosed with PPU were included. As control subjects, patients with age, sex and date of CT scan corresponding to those of the PPU subjects were included in the study at a proportion of 2 controls for every PPU subject. All data such as past medical histories, physical findings, and laboratory data were collected through chart reviews. Univariate analyses and multivariate analyses with logistic regression were conducted, and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) were calculated to show validity. Sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm results using a stepwise method and conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were included in this study; 136 were a group of patients with PPU, and 272 were a control group. Univariate analysis showed statistical significance in many categories. Four different models of multivariate analyses were conducted, and significant differences were found for muscular defense and a history of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in all models. The conditional forced-entry analysis of muscular defense showed an odds ratio (OR) of 23.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.70–100.0), and the analysis of PUD history showed an OR of 6.40 (95% CI: 1.13–36.2). The sensitivity analysis showed consistent results, with an OR of 23.8–366.2 for muscular defense and an OR of 3.67–7.81 for PUD history. The area under the curve (AUC) of all models was high enough to confirm the results. However, anticoagulants, known risk factors for PUD, did not increase the risk for PPU in our study. The conditional forced-entry analysis of anticoagulant use showed an OR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.03–22.3). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prediction factors and development of a prediction rule for PPU may help our decision making in performing a CT scan for patients with acute abdominal pain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5815199
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58151992018-02-21 Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer Yamamoto, Kazuki Takahashi, Osamu Arioka, Hiroko Kobayashi, Daiki BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prediction factors for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). METHODS: At St. Luke’s International Hospital in Tokyo, Japan, a case control study was performed between August 2004 and March 2016. All patients diagnosed with PPU were included. As control subjects, patients with age, sex and date of CT scan corresponding to those of the PPU subjects were included in the study at a proportion of 2 controls for every PPU subject. All data such as past medical histories, physical findings, and laboratory data were collected through chart reviews. Univariate analyses and multivariate analyses with logistic regression were conducted, and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) were calculated to show validity. Sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm results using a stepwise method and conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were included in this study; 136 were a group of patients with PPU, and 272 were a control group. Univariate analysis showed statistical significance in many categories. Four different models of multivariate analyses were conducted, and significant differences were found for muscular defense and a history of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in all models. The conditional forced-entry analysis of muscular defense showed an odds ratio (OR) of 23.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.70–100.0), and the analysis of PUD history showed an OR of 6.40 (95% CI: 1.13–36.2). The sensitivity analysis showed consistent results, with an OR of 23.8–366.2 for muscular defense and an OR of 3.67–7.81 for PUD history. The area under the curve (AUC) of all models was high enough to confirm the results. However, anticoagulants, known risk factors for PUD, did not increase the risk for PPU in our study. The conditional forced-entry analysis of anticoagulant use showed an OR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.03–22.3). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prediction factors and development of a prediction rule for PPU may help our decision making in performing a CT scan for patients with acute abdominal pain. BioMed Central 2018-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5815199/ /pubmed/29448921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0756-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yamamoto, Kazuki
Takahashi, Osamu
Arioka, Hiroko
Kobayashi, Daiki
Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer
title Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer
title_full Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer
title_fullStr Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer
title_short Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer
title_sort evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815199/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29448921
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0756-4
work_keys_str_mv AT yamamotokazuki evaluationofriskfactorsforperforatedpepticulcer
AT takahashiosamu evaluationofriskfactorsforperforatedpepticulcer
AT ariokahiroko evaluationofriskfactorsforperforatedpepticulcer
AT kobayashidaiki evaluationofriskfactorsforperforatedpepticulcer