ObjectiveTo analyse and compare the clinical outcomes between patients ≥80 years and 65–79 years, who presented to our emergency department (ED) with the two most common gastric emergency (GE) clinical presentation, that is, gastric bleeding and gastric perforation.DesignSingle-centre retrospective cohort study.ParticipantsA total of 1011 patients were enrolled: 421 patients aged ≥80 years were compared with a group of 590 patients aged 65–79 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was to compare the overall mortality. Secondary outcomes included major complications, in-hospital length of stay (LOS) and need for surgical procedures.ResultsPatients ≥80 years with GE had different presentations at ED compared with younger patients: they had higher gastrointestinal bleeding (24.9% vs 16.3%, p=0.001), anemisation (14.5% vs 8.8%, p=0.005) and shock (10.9% vs 5.1%, p=0.001) rates. Median LOS, cumulative major complications and mortality rates were similar among the two groups.Multivariate analysis identified shock, gastric malignancy and gastric fistula as independent predictors for survival.ConclusionsPatients ≥80 years with GE did not have a higher mortality rate and cumulative major complications as compared to younger elderly patients. Invasive treatments were not associated with a different prognosis in this age group.

Rosa, F., Covino, M., Fransvea, P., Cozza, V., Quero, G., Fiorillo, C., Simeoni, B., La Greca, A., Sganga, G., Gasbarrini, A., Franceschi, F., Costamagna, G., Alfieri, S., Gastric emergencies in older adults: not always the same old story! A tertiary care emergency department observational cohort study, <<BMJ OPEN>>, 2022; 12 (1): e056981-e056981. [doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056981] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/199660]

Gastric emergencies in older adults: not always the same old story! A tertiary care emergency department observational cohort study

Rosa F.;Covino M.;Fransvea P.;Cozza V.;Quero G.;Fiorillo C.;La Greca A.;Sganga G.;Gasbarrini A.;Franceschi F.;Costamagna G.;Alfieri S.
2022

Abstract

ObjectiveTo analyse and compare the clinical outcomes between patients ≥80 years and 65–79 years, who presented to our emergency department (ED) with the two most common gastric emergency (GE) clinical presentation, that is, gastric bleeding and gastric perforation.DesignSingle-centre retrospective cohort study.ParticipantsA total of 1011 patients were enrolled: 421 patients aged ≥80 years were compared with a group of 590 patients aged 65–79 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was to compare the overall mortality. Secondary outcomes included major complications, in-hospital length of stay (LOS) and need for surgical procedures.ResultsPatients ≥80 years with GE had different presentations at ED compared with younger patients: they had higher gastrointestinal bleeding (24.9% vs 16.3%, p=0.001), anemisation (14.5% vs 8.8%, p=0.005) and shock (10.9% vs 5.1%, p=0.001) rates. Median LOS, cumulative major complications and mortality rates were similar among the two groups.Multivariate analysis identified shock, gastric malignancy and gastric fistula as independent predictors for survival.ConclusionsPatients ≥80 years with GE did not have a higher mortality rate and cumulative major complications as compared to younger elderly patients. Invasive treatments were not associated with a different prognosis in this age group.
eng
Rosa, F., Covino, M., Fransvea, P., Cozza, V., Quero, G., Fiorillo, C., Simeoni, B., La Greca, A., Sganga, G., Gasbarrini, A., Franceschi, F., Costamagna, G., Alfieri, S., Gastric emergencies in older adults: not always the same old story! A tertiary care emergency department observational cohort study, <>, 2022; 12 (1): e056981-e056981. [doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056981] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/199660]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/10807/199660
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact