Main Article Content


Introduction: Peptic ulcer perforation is a non-traumatic emergency that is often encountered and gives a mortality rate of up to 70%. The need for a system that is easy and simple in predicting and screening patients in the initial triage to predict the incidence of mortality after surgery is important. This study aim to test the validity of predictive score of mortality in peptic ulcer perforation (POMPP) in predicting mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer surgery.

Methods: This study was a diagnostic study with 50 peptic ulcer perforation patients operated between February 2019 to February 2020, and collected with consecutive sampling method. All patients who were operated was calculated for the preoperative POMPP scores, with parameters of age, blood urea nitrogen, and albumin. Patients who were deceased or refused to participate were excluded. The best cut-off point was calculated, then sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), accuracy of score and POMPP score validity were calculated in predicting post-operative patient mortality.

Results: The best cut-off value obtained from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was ≥1.5, where patients with POMPP ≥1 were exposed to a high risk of postoperative mortality (80.8%), and POMPP <1.5 had a low risk of postoperative mortality (19.2%). Other scores were calculated as follow: sensitivity 80.7%, specificity 91.6%, PPV 91.3%, NPV 81.4%, accuracy 86% and the validity test score of 50 patients reached 100%.

Conclusion: POMPP has good validity and can be used as a screening tool for patients with perforated peptic ulcer surgery.


Peptic ulcer perforation Humans Blood urea nitrogen Albumins

Article Details

How to Cite
Putra, I. G. P. A. P., Sudiasa, K., & Mahadewa, T. G. B. (2022). Validity of predictive score of mortality in peptic ulcer perforation (POMPP) in predicting perforated peptic ulcer mortality operated in Sanglah General Hospital, Denpasar, Bali. Neurologico Spinale Medico Chirurgico, 5(1), 58-62.


  1. Anbalakan K, Chua D, Pandya GJ, et al. Five year experience in management of perforated peptic ulcer and validation of common mortality risk prediction models - are existing models sufficient? A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2015;14:38–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.12.022
  2. Bertleff MJOE, Lange JF. Perforated peptic ulcer disease: A review of history and treatment. Dig Surg. 2010;27:161–9. DOI: 10.1159/000264653
  3. Søreide K, Thorsen K, Harrison EM, et al. Perforated peptic ulcer. Lancet. 2015;386(10000):1288–98. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00276-7
  4. Menekse E, Kocer B, Topcu R, et al. A practical scoring system to predict mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. World Journal of Emergency Surgery. 2015;10(1):7. DOI: 10.1186/s13017-015-0008-7
  5. Behrman SW. Management of complicated peptic ulcer disease. Arch Surg. 2005;140(2):201–8. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.140.2.201
  6. Chung KT, Shelat VG. Perforated peptic ulcer - an update. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;9(1):1–12. DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v9.i1.1
  7. Kumar N, Sahu SK, Bedi KS. Evaluation of mortality and morbidity in patients with secondary peritonitis using predictive score of mortality in perforated peptic ulcer. International Surgery Journal. 2017;4(8):2706–9. DOI: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20173160
  8. Byakodi KG, Harini BS, Teggimani V, et al. Factors affecting morbidity and mortality in peptic ulcer perforation. International Surgery Journal. 2018;5(4):1335–40. DOI: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181105
  9. Goudar BV, Telkar S, Lamani YP, et al. Perforated peptic ulcer disease: Factors predicting the mortality and morbidity in a Tertiary Care Centre in Southern India. The Internet Journal of Surgery. 2010;27(2):1-5. Available from:
  10. Bae S, Shim K-N, Kim N, et al. Incidence and short-term mortality from perforated peptic ulcer in Korea: A population-based study. J Epidemiol. 2012;22(6):508–16. DOI: 10.2188/jea.JE20120056
  11. Thorsen K, Søreide JA, Kvaløy JT, et al. Epidemiology of perforated peptic ulcer: Age- and gender-adjusted analysis of incidence and mortality. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(3):347–54. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i3.347
  12. Ruslie RH, Ramayani OR, Darmadi D, et al. Oxidative stress markers in initial therapy and remission of nephrotic syndrome and serum malondialdehyde level predictor from routine laboratory test. Med Glas (Zenica). 2021;18:90-5. DOI: 10.17392/1192-21
  13. Ruslie RH, Darmadi D, Siregar GA. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and neopterin levels in children with steroid-sensitive and steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Med Arch. 2021;75(2):133–7. DOI: 10.5455/medarh.2021.75.133-137
  14. Darmadi D, Ruslie RH, Siregar NQ, et al. Unilateral renal cystic disease: A case report and literature review. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2020;8:160-3. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2020.5031
  15. Møller MH, Engebjerg MC, Adamsen S, et al. The peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score: A predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation. A cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56(5):655–62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02609.x
  16. Cheng M, Li WH, Cheung MT. Early outcome after emergency gastrectomy for complicated peptic ulcer disease. Hong Kong Med J. 2012;18(4):291–8.
  17. Kim J-M, Jeong S-H, Lee Y-J, et al. Analysis of risk factors for postoperative morbidity in perforated peptic ulcer. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12(1):26–35. DOI: 10.5230/jgc.2012.12.1.26
  18. Gupta S, Bansal S, Rajpurohit M, et al. Comparison of POMPP scoring system with PULP score, Boey score, and ASA scoring systems to predict mortality in peptic perforation. Indian Journal of Surgery. 2021;83:160-4. DOI: 10.1007/s12262-020-02351-3
  19. Prakash BKR, Patil S, Mohan M. Comparative study between POMPP score versus Boey score to predict morbidity and mortality in peptic perforation peritonitis. International Surgery Journal. 2021;29:543–6. DOI: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20210054