Assessment of PULP score in predicting 30-day perforated duodenal ulcer morbidity, and comparison of its performance with Boey and ASA, a retrospective study

Background: /aim: Scores commonly employed to risk stratify perforated peptic ulcer patients include ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists), Boey and peptic ulcer perforation score (PULP). However, few studies assessed and compared the accuracy indices of these three scores in predicting post PPU repair 30-day morbidity. We assessed accuracy indices of PULP, and compared them to Boey and ASA in predicting post perforated duodenal (PDU) ulcer repair 30-day morbidity. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all PDU patients (perforated duodenal ulcers only) at the largest two hospitals in Qatar (N = 152). Data included demographic, clinical, laboratory, operative, and post repair 30-day morbidity. Area under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were computed for each of the 3 scores. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the accuracy indices of each score. Results: All patients were males (M age 37.41 years). Post PDU repair 30-day morbidity was 10.5% (16 morbidities). Older age, higher ASA (?3), Boey (?1) or PULP (?8) scores, shock on admission and preoperative comorbidities; and conversely, lower hemoglobin and albumin were all positively significantly associated with higher post PDU 30-day morbidity. PULP displayed the largest AUC (72%), and was the only score to significantly predict 30-day morbidity. The current study is the first to report the sensitivity and specificity of these three scores for post PDU repair 30-day morbidity; and first to assess accuracy indices for PULP in predicting post PDU repair 30-day morbidity. Conclusion: PULP score had the largest AUC and was the only score to significantly predict post PDU repair 30-day morbidity.Scopu

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population