Diagnosis of Uncomplicated and Complicated Appendicitis in Adults

Background:Diagnostic work-up of acute appendicitis remains challenging. While some guidelines advise to use a risk stratification based on clinical parameters, others use standard imaging in all patients. As non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis has been identified as feasible and safe, differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is of paramount importance. We reviewed the literature to describe the optimal strategy for diagnosis of acute appendicitis.Methods:A narrative review about the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult patients was conducted. Both diagnostic strategies and goals were analyzed.Results:For diagnosing acute appendicitis, both ruling in and ruling out the disease are important. Clinical and laboratory findings individually do not suffice, but when combined in a diagnostic score, a better risk prediction can be made for having acute appendicitis. However, for accurate diagnosis imaging seems obligatory in patients suspected for acute appendicitis. Scoring systems combining clinical and imaging features may differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and may enable ruling out complicated appendicitis. Within conservatively treated patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, predictive factors for non-responsiveness to antibiotics and recurrence of appendicitis need to be defined in order to optimize treatment outcomes.Conclusion:Standard imaging increases the diagnostic power for both ruling in and ruling out acute appendicitis. Incorporating imaging features in clinical scoring models may provide better differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Optimizing patient selection for antibiotic treatment of appendicitis may minimize recurrence rates, resulting in better treatment outcomes

Re-Assessment in Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis

Background: The effect of diagnosing appendicitis at re-assessment on post-operative outcomes is not clear. This study aims to compare patients diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation versus patients who were diagnosed at re-assessment. Patients and Methods: Data from the Dutch SNAPSHOT appendicitis collaborative was used. Patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy were included. Effects of diagnosis at re-assessment were compared with diagnosis at initial presentation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate. Results: Of 1,832 patients, 245 (13.4%) were diagnosed at re-assessment. Re-assessed patients had a post-operative complication rate comparable to those diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation (15.1% vs. 12.7%; p = 0.29) and no substantial difference was found in the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis (27.9% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.07). For patients with complicated appendicitis, more post-operative complications were seen if diagnosed at re-assessment than if diagnosed initially (38.2% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.006). Conclusions: For patients in whom appendicitis was not diagnosed at first presentation, but at re-assessment, both the proportion of complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate were comparable to those who were diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation. However, re-assessed patients with complicated appendicitis encountered more post-operative complications

Optimising diagnostics to discriminate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis: a prospective cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence is showing that complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis are two different entities that may be treated differently. A correct diagnosis of the type of appendicitis is therefore essential. The Scoring system of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) combines clinical, laboratory and imaging findings. The SAS rules out complicated appendicitis in 95% (negative predictive value, NPV) and detects 95% (sensitivity) of patients with complicated appendicitis in adults suspected of acute appendicitis. However, this scoring system has not yet been validated externally. In this study, we aim to provide a prospective external validation of the SAS in a new cohort of patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis. We will optimise the score when necessary. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SAS will be validated in 795 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis confirmed by imaging. Data will be collected prospectively in multiple centres. The predicted diagnosis based on the SAS score will be compared with the combined surgical and histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for ruling out complicated appendicitis will be calculated. If the SAS does not reach a sensitivity and NPV of 95% in its present form, the score will be optimised. After optimisation, a second external validation will be performed in a new group of 328 patients. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical perspective of the treating physician for differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and the patient's preferences for different treatment options will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference W19_416 # 19.483). Because of the observational nature of this study, the study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals. This protocol is submitted for publication before analysis of the results

Daytime versus Nighttime in Acute Appendicitis

Background: Little is known about patients with appendicitis presenting at nighttime. It is hypothesized that patients presented at night more frequently have a complicated (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis and therefore develop more postoperative complications. Methods: In this study data were used from the nationwide, prospective SNAPSHOT study appendicitis, including 1975 patients undergoing surgery for suspected appendicitis. This study included only adults. Two primary outcomes were defined: (A) The proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and (B) the proportion of patients with a complication postoperatively presenting during daytime versus nighttime period. Analysis for both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was performed, and a multivariate model was used to correct for baseline characteristics and time to surgery. Results: In total, 1361 adult patients with appendicitis were analyzed. Both at nighttime and at daytime, 34% had complicated appendicitis. In patients presenting in the daytime, 12.1% developed a postoperative complication versus 18.6% for presentation at night (p = 0.008). In a multivariate analysis, the risk for a postoperative complication when presenting at night was significantly increased (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.14–2.66, p = 0.01). Surgery within eight hours after presentation does not lower this risk (adjusted OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.97–1.95, p = 0.078). Conclusion: Complicated appendicitis is seen as frequently during the day as at nighttime. For patients who present at nighttime with acute appendicitis, the risk of a postoperative complication is higher compared with a presentation at daytime. In multivariate analysis, nighttime presentation but not surgery within 8 h after presentation is independently associated with postoperative complication risk

Mortality and pulmonary complications in emergency general surgery patients with COVID-19: A large international multicenter study

OBJECTIVES The outcomes of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection remain unknown. With a multicenter study in 361 hospitals from 52 countries, we sought to study the mortality and pulmonary complications of COVID-19 patients undergoing EGS. METHODS All patients 17 years or older and diagnosed preoperatively with COVID-19 between February and July 2020 were included. Emergency general surgery was defined as the urgent/emergent performance of appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or laparotomy. The main outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day pulmonary complications (a composite of acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected mechanical ventilation, or pneumonia). Planned subgroup analyses were performed based on presence of preoperative COVID-related respiratory findings (e.g., cough, dyspnea, need for oxygen therapy, chest radiology abnormality). RESULTS A total of 1,045 patients were included, of which 40.1% were female and 50.0% were older than 50 years; 461 (44.1%), 145 (13.9%), and 439 (42.0%) underwent appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and laparotomy, respectively. The overall mortality rate was 15.1% (158 of 1,045 patients), and the overall pulmonary complication rate was 32.9% (344 of 1,045 patients); in the subgroup of laparotomy patients, the rates were 30.6% (134 of 438 patients) and 59.2% (260 of 439 patients), respectively. Subgroup analyses found mortality and pulmonary complication risk to be especially increased in patients with preoperative respiratory findings. CONCLUSION COVID-19 patients undergoing EGS have significantly high rates of mortality and pulmonary complications, but the risk is most pronounced in those with preoperative respiratory findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level IV

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures