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

ESICM LIVES 2016: part two : Milan, Italy. 1-5 October 2016.

Meeting abstrac

Management and 1-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease: Results from the prospective garfield-af registry

Background-—Using data from the GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD–Atrial Fibrillation), we evaluated the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage on clinical outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and Results-—GARFIELD-AF is a prospective registry of patients from 35 countries, including patients from Asia (China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). Consecutive patients enrolled (2013–2016) were classified with no, mild, or moderate-to-severe CKD, based on the National Kidney Foundation’s Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines. Data on CKD status and outcomes were available for 33 024 of 34 854 patients (including 9491 patients from Asia); 10.9% (n=3613) had moderate-to-severe CKD, 16.9% (n=5595) mild CKD, and 72.1% (n=23 816) no CKD. The use of oral anticoagulants was influenced by stroke risk (ie, post hoc assessment of CHA2DS2-VASc score), but not by CKD stage. The quality of anticoagulant control with vitamin K antagonists did not differ with CKD stage. After adjusting for baseline characteristics and antithrombotic use, both mild and moderate-to-severe CKD were independent risk factors for all-cause mortality. Moderate-to-severe CKD was independently associated with a higher risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, new-onset acute coronary syndrome, and new or worsening heart failure. The impact of moderate-to-severe CKD on mortality was significantly greater in patients from Asia than the rest of the world (P=0.001). Conclusions-—In GARFIELD-AF, moderate-to-severe CKD was independently associated with stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and mortality. The effect of moderate-to-severe CKD on mortality was even greater in patients from Asia than the rest of the world