PULP Score vs AAST EGS Grading System in Prediction of Outcome of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Retrospective Study
S171 Dwarakavasa Road, Bharathnagar, 2nd Stage, BEL Layout, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Introduction: Peptic Ulcer Disease (PUD) is the most common diagnosis for upper abdomen pain, and it includes ulcerations and erosion in the Stomach and Duodenum. Complication such as Perforated PUD (PPUD) is only second to bleeding and remains a life-threatening emergency.
Aim: To compare the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma– Emergency General Surgery (AAST EGS) scoring system with a widely accepted Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) scoring system for PULP to determine the discriminative capacity and pairwise comparison of both scoring systems.
Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted from September 2018 to August 2020 at Department of General Surgery, PES institute of Medical Science, Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, India. All the adults diagnosed with perforated PUD were included. Preoperative, Intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. The scores were generated for PULP and AAST EGS grades and analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0. Spearman’s rho test evaluated a comparison of each variable with the AAST EGS grade. The pairwise comparison was performed for complication development, patient duration of stay, mortality and described using the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) with 95% confidence intervals.
Results: This study included 165 patients in this 87% male with a mean age of 56.89±16.79 years. All the total patients were divided into those <=50 years (n=56,mean age:36.8±9.04 years) and >50 years (n=109,mean age: 67.2±8.4 years) and comparative analysis was performed accordingly. Overall, the patients were categorised into the following AAST EGS grade I (9, 5.5%), grade II (99, 60%), grade III (42, 25.45%), grade IV (15, 9%), there were no patients with grade 5 AAST EGS. The AAST EGS grade was comparatively better them PULP score for postoperative complications, but there is not much difference between the PULP score and AAST EGS score for the patient's duration of stay. AAST EGS grade and the PULP discriminated, patient 30-day mortality similarly, but if Area Under Curve (AUC) >0.8, it is a good predictor.
Conclusion: The AAST EGS scoring system and the PULP scoring system do similarly predict mortality and complication. But the presence of many variables with points and tabulation which requires laboratory investigation makes PULP scoring system inconvieninent at bedside.