ABSTRACT
Background
Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is more prevalent in cirrhotic patients and it has been associated with poor outcomes. However, there are no population-based studies from the United States (U.S.) that have investigated this association. Our study aims to estimate the incidence trends, predictors, and outcomes PUD patients with underlying cirrhosis.
Methods
We analyzed Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) data for years 2002–2014. Adult hospitalizations due to PUD were identified by previously validated ICD-9-CM codes as the primary diagnosis. Cirrhosis was also identified with presence of ICD-9-CM codes in secondary diagnosis fields. We analyzed trends and predictors of PUD in cirrhotic patients and utilized multivariate regression models to estimate the impact of cirrhosis on PUD outcomes.
Results
Between the years 2002–2014, there were 1,433,270 adult hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of PUD, out of which 70,007 (4.88%) had cirrhosis as a concurrent diagnosis. There was a significant increase in the proportion of hospitalizations with a concurrent diagnosis of cirrhosis, from 3.9% in 2002 to 6.6% in 2014 (p < 0.001). In an adjusted multivariable analysis, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in hospitalizations of PUD with cirrhosis (odd ratio [OR] 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63–1.97; P < 0.001), however, there was no difference in the discharge to facility (OR 1.00; 95%CI 0.94 − 1.07; P = 0.81). Moreover, length of stay (LOS) was also higher (6 days vs. 4 days, P < 0.001) among PUD with cirrhosis. Increasing age and comorbidities were associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality among PUD patients with cirrhosis.
Conclusion
Our study shows that there is an increased hospital burden as well as poor outcomes in terms of higher in-hospital mortality among hospitalized PUD patients with cirrhosis. Further studies are warranted for better risk stratification and improvement of outcomes.
Declaration of interest
The contents of the paper and the opinions expressed within are those of the authors, and it was the decision of the authors to submit the manuscript for publication.
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.