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