Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA)

Background: The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Methods: The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up. Results: The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P&lt;0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P&lt;0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P=0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P=0.013). Conclusion: Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts