Prognostic factors in patients with gastrointestinal perforation under the acute care surgery model : a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Gastrointestinal perforation (GIP) is a life-threatening condition that necessitates immediate surgical intervention. This study aims to identify prognostic factors in patients with GIP treated within a standardized acute care surgery (ACS) framework.

Materials And Methods: This single center retrospective cohort study analyzed patients diagnosed with GIP who underwent emergent surgery and were admitted to the intensive care unit between January 2013 and March 2023.

Results: Among 354 patients, the mortality was 11%, and 38% of survivors experienced significant complications (Clavien-Dindo class III or higher). Independent prognostic factors for mortality included initial sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores (at the time of admission or ACS activation), postoperative SOFA (p-SOFA) scores, and postoperative body temperatures. For morbidity, independent predictors were the extent of peritonitis, the open surgery, postoperative albumin levels, and p-SOFA scores. These factors showed significant predictive accuracy for patient outcomes, as evidenced by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The Random Forest model identified p-SOFA scores and postoperative albumin levels as the most significant predictors for both survival and complications, with feature importances of 40.46% and 36.61% for survival, and 39.97% and 37.28% for complications, respectively. Postoperative body temperature also played a moderately important role, contributing 14.63% to mortality and 15.9% to morbidity predictions. Patients with a p-SOFA score ≥ 7, postoperative albumin ≤ 2, and body temperature ≤ 36 °C, as well as those with a p-SOFA score ≥ 10, albumin ≤ 2.9, and body temperature ≤ 36 °C, had a 100% mortality rate. These factors are critical indicators for predicting patient outcomes.

Conclusion: It is crucial to establish a system that ensures rapid preoperative work-up, accurate surgical intervention, and evidence-based postoperative critical care. Implementing such a system and assessing patient outcomes after surgery using the identified factors could provide a more detailed evaluation.