Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of the baseline patients’ characteristics, including demographics and medical histories, between those with perforation and those without perforation by univariate analysis

From: Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer

  Case subjects (those with perforation) Control subjects (those without perforation) p-value
n = 136 n = 272  
Patients’ demographics
 Agea, year (SD) 56.2 (16.5) 56.2 (16.5) 1.00
 Malea, n (%) 116 (85.3) 232 (85.3) 1.00
 Smoking, n (%) 98 (72.1) 114 (41.9) < 0.01
 Regular alcohol consumption, n (%) 75 (55.1) 112 (41.2) 0.48
Medical history
 Gastrointestinal history
  Peptic ulcer disease, n (%) 45 (33.1) 27 (9.9) < 0.01
  Gastroesophageal reflux disease, n (%) 2 (1.5) 4 (1.5) 1.00
  Crohn’s disease, n (%) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) N/A
  Ulcerative colitis, n (%) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.4) 1.00
  H. pylori infection, n (%) 9 (6.6) 1 (0.4) < 0.01
  Adnominal operation, n (%) 38 (27.9) 74 (27.2) 0.91
  Prior ESDb, n (%) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.4) 1.00
 Other history
  Hypertension, n (%) 34 (25.0) 68 (25.0) 1.00
  Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 19 (14.0) 32 (11.8) 0.53
  Dyslipidemia, n (%) 12 (8.8) 42 (15.4) 0.07
  Cancer baring, n (%) 17 (12.5) 31 (11.4) 0.75
  Under chemotherapy, n (%) 8 (5.9) 8 (2.9) 0.18
  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, n (%) 0 (0.0) 9 (3.3) 0.03
  Cirrhosis, n (%) 2 (1.5) 3 (1.1) 1.00
  1. aAge and Male were matched
  2. bESD represents endoscopic submucosal dissection
  3. Numbers in bold indicate that the p value is less than 0.05