Prognostic scoring indicator in evaluation of clinical outcome in intestinal perforations.

INTRODUCTION Acute generalised peritonitis coming forth due to underlying intestinal perforation is a critical & life-threatening medical condition. It is a common surgical emergency most of the times across the world. Misleading data on crude morbidity and mortality due to the condition usually contaminates substantially the very purpose of medical audit. Thus, early prognostic evaluation is not only desirable but mandate to much extent. High-risk patients require timely & aggressive treatment especially in severe peritonitis & to select them reasonably well, evaluation through prognostic scoring is an approach of choice. Well sought after & reasonably reliable APACHE II scoring system is used for the purpose & scores are correlated well to accentuate & measure the various factors needed for better management of condition. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was conducted over the period of 18 months (Jan 2010 to June 2011) on 50 patients with confirmed diagnosis of intestinal perforation. APACHE II score was calculated and correlated with their symptoms & clinical outcomes regarding morbidity and mortality. RESULTS APACHE II score correlated well with the outcome of the study, showing score affects of two major aspects in the treatment outcome & management.1.) APACHE II score of less than 10 included 30 low risk group patients discharged in a satisfactory gratifying manner. Three out of four in high risk group with APACHE II score >20, shown adverse outcomes. 2.)Mean ICU stay of 9.75 days was found in patients with APACHE II score 20 or more compared to those with mean ICU stay of 0.13 days in patients with APACHE II score 10 or less. CONCLUSION Acute generalized peritonitis being life-threatening medical emergency requires careful consideration in its management that needs to be economically viable, acceptably feasible and outcome oriented with better allocation & utilization of ICU resources that needs meticulous case analysis & prioritization. This present study helps the clinicians in three major ways: a) To take better decisions on case to case basis; b) To design strategies in order to prevent adverse outcomes; c) Last but not least, to make better use of ICU resources.