A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis

Clinical outcomes in patients with complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Complicated appendicitis (appendicitis with abscess, perforation, or generalized peritonitis) poses a significant burden on healthcare systems, with incidence up to 28-29%. Current management options include antibiotic therapy and up-front surgery, antibiotic therapy and percutaneous drainage, or antibiotic therapy alone. There is no consensus on treatment guidelines in current literature. This study aims to better define treatment algorithms for patients presenting with acute complicated appendicitis by evaluating clinical outcomes in those treated with or without surgery.

METHODS

We performed a single-institution, retrospective review of 220 adult patients (≥ 18 years old) treated for acute complicated appendicitis from January 2017 to June 2022. Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were collected and analyzed. We compared patients who were managed non-operatively versus operatively. Regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with non-operative management (NOM) and those predictive of failure of NOM.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed 26.3% patients with acute complicated appendicitis underwent NOM (n = 58), versus 73.6% underwent operative management at index admission (n = 162). Within the NOM group, 55.1% patients were treated with antibiotics alone (n = 32) versus 44.8% with percutaneous drainage (n = 26). Within the operative cohort, 88.7% of patients underwent appendectomy (n = 142). Age, body mass index, comorbidities, vital signs and laboratory values on admission were similar between both groups. Clinical factors predictive of initial NOM were perforation (OR 7.9, 95% CI 3.7-16.5) and phlegmon (OR 6.3, 95% CI 2.8-14.1) at presentation. Clinical factors predictive of failure of NOM requiring surgery on index admission or within 30 days was larger abscess and/or phlegmon size (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.0-3.0).

CONCLUSION

There may be a role in identifying clinical factors in patients with complicated appendicitis that favor non operative versus operative management. Larger abscess and/or phlegmon size could be a predictor of failure of NOM.

Designing multicenter individually randomized group treatment trials

In an individually randomized group treatment (IRGT) trial, participant outcomes can be positively correlated due to, for example, shared therapists in treatment delivery. Oftentimes, because of limited treatment resources or participants at one location, an IRGT trial can be carried out across multiple centers. This design can be subject to potential correlations in the participant outcomes between arms within the same center. While the design of a single-center IRGT trial has been studied, little is known about the planning of a multicenter IRGT trial. To address this gap, this paper provides analytical sample size formulas for designing multicenter IRGT trials with a continuous endpoint under the linear mixed model framework. We found that accounting for the additional center-level correlation at the design stage can lead to sample size reduction, and the magnitude of reduction depends on the amount of between-therapist correlation. However, if the variance components of therapist-level random effects are considered as input parameters in the design stage, accounting for the additional center-level variance component has no impact on the sample size estimation. We presented our findings through numeric illustrations and performed simulation studies to validate our sample size procedures under different scenarios. Optimal design configurations under the multicenter IRGT trials have also been discussed, and two real-world trial examples are drawn to illustrate the use of our method.

Interpretable and intervenable ultrasonography-based machine learning models for pediatric appendicitis

Appendicitis is among the most frequent reasons for pediatric abdominal surgeries. Previous decision support systems for appendicitis have focused on clinical, laboratory, scoring, and computed tomography data and have ignored abdominal ultrasound, despite its noninvasive nature and widespread availability. In this work, we present interpretable machine learning models for predicting the diagnosis, management and severity of suspected appendicitis using ultrasound images. Our approach utilizes concept bottleneck models (CBM) that facilitate interpretation and interaction with high-level concepts understandable to clinicians. Furthermore, we extend CBMs to prediction problems with multiple views and incomplete concept sets. Our models were trained on a dataset comprising 579 pediatric patients with 1709 ultrasound images accompanied by clinical and laboratory data. Results show that our proposed method enables clinicians to utilize a human-understandable and intervenable predictive model without compromising performance or requiring time-consuming image annotation when deployed. For predicting the diagnosis, the extended multiview CBM attained an AUROC of 0.80 and an AUPR of 0.92, performing comparably to similar black-box neural networks trained and tested on the same dataset.

Hospitalization Costs for Patients with Acute Appendicitis: An Update Using Real-World Data from a Large Province in China

Purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the factors influencing hospitalization costs for patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis in China.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from Provincial Health Statistics Support System Database from S Province in China. This dataset contained all hospital's electronic medical records from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018 including both public and private hospitals. The target population was identified based on the principal diagnosis of appendicitis (ICD-10: K35). To examine the impact of various factors on hospitalization costs, we conducted a multivariate linear regression analysis. Furthermore, we employed the Shapley value decomposition method to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influenced hospitalization costs and their respective levels of importance.

Results

Our study comprised 317,200 cases. During the period from 2015 to 2018, the average hospitalization expenses for patients with acute appendicitis were estimated at approximately 7014 RMB (1061 USD), which accounts for a considerable 12% of China's per capita GDP. The results of this study demonstrate a significant correlation between various factors, such as the patient's age, gender, marital status, occupation, payment method, number of complications, treatment method, hospital tier, and ownership, and the total hospitalization costs and subcomponents of hospitalization costs. Notably, the treatment method employed had the most substantial impact on hospitalization costs.

Conclusion

To the best of knowledge, this is one of the first studies to investigate the hospitalization costs of acute appendicitis incorporating both patient-level and hospital-level covariates, using a large sample size. To reduce the costs associated with acute appendicitis in China, it is recommended to consider suitable treatment options and explore the option of receiving medical care at lower-tier and privately-owned healthcare facilities.

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials).

RESULTS

Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference -14.38, 95% confidence interval [-20.17, -8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.19, 95% confidence interval [-2.37, -0.01]), with lower post-intervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14.87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval [-3.18, -0.64]).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year.

The burden of the knowledge-to-action gap in acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The burden of emergency general surgery (EGS) is higher compared to elective surgery. Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most frequent diseases and its management is dictated by published international clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Adherence to CPG has been reported as heterogeneous. Barriers to clinical implementation were not studied. This study explored barriers to adherence to CPG and the clinico-economic impact of poor compliance.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the three-year data lock of the REsiDENT-1 registry, a prospective resident-led multicenter trial. We identified 7 items from CPG published from the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) and the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). We applied our classification proposal and used a five-point Likert scale (Ls) to assess laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) difficulty. Descriptive analyses were performed to explore compliance and group comparisons to assess the impact on outcomes and related costs. We ran logistic regressions to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of CPG.

RESULTS

From 2019 to 2022, 653 LA were included from 24 centers. 69 residents performed and coordinated data collection. We identified low compliance with recommendations on peritoneal irrigation (PI) (25.73%), abdominal drains (AD) (34.68%), and antibiotic stewardship (34.17%). Poor compliance on PI and AD was associated to higher infectious complications in uncomplicated AA. Hospitalizations were significantly longer in non-compliance except for PI in uncomplicated AA, and costs significantly higher, exception made for antibiotic stewardship in complicated AA. The strongest barriers to CPG implementation were complicated AA and technically challenging LA for PI and AD. Longer operative times and the use of PI negatively affected antibiotic stewardship in uncomplicated AA. Compliance was higher in teaching hospitals and in emergency surgery units.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed low compliance with standardized items influenced by environmental factors and non-evidence-based practices in complex LA. Antibiotic stewardship is sub-optimal. Not following CPG may not influence clinical complications but has an impact in terms of logistics, costs and on the non-measurable magnitude of antibiotic resistance. Structured educational interventions and institutional bundles are required.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy Combined with an "Antimicrobial-Free" Strategy for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis

Objective: To explore the efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) combined with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in the treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA) without antibiotics. Methods: In this study, a total of 160 patients with AUA who underwent LA between January 2018 and December 2021 were included and divided into the antibiotic group (n = 80) or the no-antibiotic group (n = 80). The patients in the antibiotic group received the ERP combined with antimicrobials during the perioperative period, while those in the no-antibiotic group only received the ERP during the perioperative period. The clinical data of these patients were collected to compare the inflammation level and stress state before and after surgery. In addition, the incidence of postoperative complications and the recovery speed of the patients were compared between groups. Results: There were no significant differences in the inflammation level and stress state before or after surgery, the incidence of postoperative complications or the recovery speed between the antibiotic group and the no-antibiotic group (P > .05). Conclusion: The use of ERP combined with LA as an antimicrobial-free treatment scheme in the perioperative period was found to be safe and effective for patients with AUA. Therefore, this approach is clinically valuable.

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Surgical Outcomes and Quality of Care Among Adult Appendicitis Patients: A Comparative Study of Tertiary Care Hospitals and Regional Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common abdominal emergencies, with management approaches that vary depending on the available resources and setting. However, there is a lack of studies on the differences of surgical outcomes and quality of care between tertiary care hospitals and regional hospitals.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 2158 consecutive adult patients between January 2014 and June 2018 at three hospitals. The patient cohort was divided into regional hospital group (N = 1223) and tertiary care hospital group (N = 935). Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared, and factors associated with surgical delay and postoperative complication were investigated.

RESULTS

Patients in tertiary care hospital group had longer surgical waiting time (17.3 vs. 12.0 h, p < 0.001), higher risks of surgical delay exceeding 24 h (OR = 2.94, 95% CI 2.17-4.01, p < 0.001), longer operation time (64 vs. 50 min, p < 0.001), more appendix perforation (22.4 vs. 13.3%, p < 0.001), and higher hospital cost compared with regional hospital group. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with surgical delay were tertiary care hospital (OR = 2.94, 95% CI 2.18-4.01, p < 0.001) and delay diagnosis (OR = 18.7, 95% CI 11.7-30.1, p < 0.001), while those associated with postoperative complications were older age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.013), male sex (OR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.11-5.52, p = 0.031), surgical delay (OR = 2.99, 95% CI 1.30-6.47, p = 0.007), and appendix perforation (OR = 5.61, 95% CI 2.72-11.85, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at tertiary care hospitals had longer waiting time, more surgical delays, and appendix perforations, and these were risk factors of postoperative complications. Establishing an effective referral system to redirect appendicitis patients with less complex medical histories from tertiary care hospitals to regional hospitals may enhance the quality of patient care and outcomes, while also reducing medical costs.

Routine post-operative labs and healthcare system burden in acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Data from the National Health Expenditure Accounts have shown a steady increase in healthcare cost paralleled by availability of laboratory tests. Resource utilization is a top priority for reducing health care costs. We hypothesized that routine post-operative laboratory utilization unnecessarily increases costs and healthcare system burden in acute appendicitis (AA) management.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients with uncomplicated AA 2016-2020 were identified. Clinical variables, demographics, lab usage, interventions, and costs were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 3711 patients with uncomplicated AA were identified. Total costs of labs ($289,505, 99.56%) and repletions ($1287.63, 0.44%) were $290,792.63. Increased LOS was associated with lab utilization in multivariable modeling, increasing costs by $837,602 or 472.12 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient population, post-operative labs resulted in increased costs without discernible impact on clinical course. Routine post-operative laboratory testing should be re-evaluated in patients with minimal comorbidities as this likely increases cost without adding value.

Multi-institutional assessment of the prevalence of neuroendocrine tumors in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis in the United States

As non-operative management of acute appendicitis in children has become more common, missed incidental appendiceal pathology can be an unintended consequence. We assessed the prevalence of neuroendocrine tumors in appendectomy specimens from eight US children's hospitals from 2012 to 2021. The prevalence of neuroendocrine tumors (NET) was found to be 1:271, with a median age of 14 years and 62% female. Most tumors were small (median 6 mm; interquartile range [IQR]: 3-10), and no recurrence was noted during the follow-up period (median 22.5 months; IQR: 3-53). The possibility of delayed diagnosis of these tumors should be part of the discussion for non-operative management of pediatric acute appendicitis.

Emergency Surgery, Multimorbidity and Hospital-Free Days: A Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Analyzing hospital-free days (HFDs) offers a patient-centered approach to health services research. We hypothesized that, within emergency general surgery (EGS), multimorbidity would be associated with fewer HFDs, whether patients were managed operatively or nonoperatively.

METHODS

EGS patients were identified using national Medicare claims data (2015-2018). Patients were classified as multimorbid based on the presence of a Qualifying Comorbidity Set and stratified by treatment: operative (received surgery within 48 h of index admission) and nonoperative. HFDs were calculated through 180 d, beginning on the day of index admission, as days alive and spent outside of a hospital, an Emergency Department, or a long-term acute care facility. Univariate comparisons were performed using Kruskal-Wallis tests and risk-adjusted HFDs were compared between multimorbid and nonmultimorbid patients using multivariable zero-inflated negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS

Among 174,891 operative patients, 45.5% were multimorbid. Among 398,756 nonoperative patients, 59.2% were multimorbid. Multimorbid patients had fewer median HFDs than nonmultimorbid patients among operative and nonoperative cohorts (P < 0.001). At 6 mo, among operative patients, multimorbid patients had 6.5 fewer HFDs (P < 0.001), and among nonoperative patients, multimorbid patients had 7.9 fewer HFDs (P < 0.001). When length of stay was included as a covariate, nonoperative multimorbid patients still had 7.9 fewer HFDs than nonoperative, nonmultimorbid patients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

HFDs offer a patient-centered, composite outcome for claims-based analyses. For EGS patients, multimorbidity was associated with less time alive and out of the hospital, especially when patients were managed nonoperatively.

Appendiceal Vaginal Fistula: A Rare Complication of Nonoperative Appendicitis Management

Appendicitis is one of the most common conditions encountered in emergency surgical practice. An appendico-cutaneous fistula is a rare complication of appendicitis. An appendico-vaginal fistula is extremely rare. To our knowledge, based on a thorough review of the literature using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar, only three other cases of an appendico-vaginal fistula have been reported. We present one such case in a 43-year-old female with a history of partial hysterectomy, recurrent abscesses that had failed to respond to repeated drainage and antibiotic treatment, and nonoperative treatment of appendicitis.

Role of preoperative in-hospital delay on appendiceal perforation while awaiting appendicectomy (PERFECT): a Nordic, pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy remains the standard treatment for appendicitis. No international consensus exists on the surgical urgency for acute uncomplicated appendicitis, and recommendations vary from surgery without delay to surgery within 24 h. Longer in-hospital delay has been thought to increase the risk of perforation and further morbidity. Therefore, we aimed to compare the rate of appendiceal perforation in patients undergoing appendicectomy scheduled to two different urgencies (<8 h vs <24 h).

METHODS

In this pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial in two hospitals in Finland and one in Norway, patients (aged ≥18 years) with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to an appendicectomy scheduled within 8 h or within 24 h to determine whether longer in-hospital delay (time between randomisation and surgical incision) is not inferior to shorter delay. Patients were excluded in cases of pregnancy, suspicion of perforated appendicitis (C-reactive protein level of ≥100 mg/L, fever >38·5°C, signs of complicated appendicitis on imaging studies, or clinical generalised peritonitis), or other reasons requiring prompt surgery. The recruiters were on-duty surgeons who decided to proceed with the appendicectomy. The randomisation sequence was generated using block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes and stratified by hospital districts; neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis diagnosed during surgery analysed in all patients who received an appendicectomy by intention to treat. The absolute difference in rates of perforated appendicitis was compared between the groups. Complications and other safety outcomes were analysed in all patients who received an appendicectomy. A margin of 5 percentage points was used to establish non-inferiority. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04378868) and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between May 18, 2020, and Dec 31, 2022, 2095 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1822 were randomly assigned to appendicectomy scheduled within 8 h (n=914) or 24 h (n=908). After randomisation, 19 (1%) of 1822 patients were excluded due to protocol violation. 1803 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses, 985 (55%) of whom were male and 818 (45%) female. Appendiceal perforation rate was similar between groups (77 [8%] of 907 patients assigned to the <8 h group and 81 [9%] of 896 patients assigned to the <24 h group; absolute risk difference 0·6% [95% CI -2·1 to 3·2], p=0·68; risk ratio 1·065, 95% CI 0·790 to 1·435). No significant difference was found between the complication rates within 30 days (66 [7%] of 907 patients in the <8 h group vs 56 [6%] of 896 patients in the <24 h group; difference -1·0% [-3·3 to 1·3]; p=0·39), and no deaths occurred during this follow-up period.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis, scheduling appendicectomy within 24 h does not increase the risk of appendiceal perforation compared with scheduling appendicectomy within 8 h. The results can be used to allocate operating room resources, for example postponing night-time appendicectomy to daytime.

FUNDING

The Finnish Medical Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and the Finnish Government.

Risks Associated with Surgical Treatment for Appendicitis in Hematologic Patients

Appendicitis is a prevalent surgical emergency. Although appendectomy has traditionally been the go-to treatment, recent studies suggest antibiotics can be equally effective for uncomplicated cases. However, evidence is scant regarding patients with hematologic disorders. This study delves into the surgical risks tied to appendicitis in patients with underlying hematologic conditions. A retrospective analysis was carried out on patients diagnosed with appendicitis and hematologic disorders from January 2000 to June 2021. Patients were pinpointed using ICD-10 diagnostic codes, and surgical procedures were identified based on the hospital's surgical fee codes. Hematologic conditions were sorted into risk levels, and patient treatments were scrutinized. Among the 131 initially identified patients, 89 were included in the study. Out of these, 75 underwent surgical procedures, while 14 received non-surgical treatments. The surgical group displayed better preoperative laboratory outcomes. Clinical characteristics, hematologic disease risk, and severity of appendicitis appeared not to be related to surgical complications. Patients without surgical complications showed improvement in preoperative absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and platelet counts. Lower preoperative ANCs and platelet counts were associated with extended hospital stays. For patients with hematologic disorders diagnosed with appendicitis, thorough preoperative laboratory evaluations followed by minimally invasive appendectomy appear to be a safe route without heightening the risk of severe complications compared to non-surgical management.

Usefulness of serum sodium levels as a novel marker for predicting acute appendicitis severity: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early and accurate preoperative diagnosis of complicated appendicitis mandates the identification of new markers. The aim of this study is to determine whether preoperative serum sodium levels are useful for predicting the severity of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 475 patients who underwent emergency appendectomies between January 2018 and February 2023 in a general hospital in Brazil. The patients were divided into 2 groups: complicated (n = 254) and uncomplicated (n = 221). Hyponatremia was defined as serum sodium levels < 136 mEq/L. The primary outcome was to evaluate if hyponatremia is associated with complicated appendicitis.

RESULTS

The patients had a median age of 22 years, and the median serum sodium level was 137 mEq/L in patients with complicated appendicitis and 139 mEq/L in uncomplicated appendicitis (P < 0.001). The analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve used as the best cutoff value of serum sodium of 136 mEq/L with a sensitivity of 45.7%, specificity of 86.4%, positive predictive value of 79.5%, and negative predictive value of 58.1% for the diagnosis of complicated AA. Of the 254 patients with complicated appendicitis, 84 (33.1%) had serum sodium levels below 136 mEq/L, while only 12 (5.4%) patients with uncomplicated appendicitis had values ​​below this cutoff. Patients with hyponatremia were 5 times more likely to develop complicated appendicitis. (odds ratio: 5.35; 95% confidence interval: 3.39-8.45) CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative serum sodium levels are a useful tool for predicting the severity of acute appendicitis. Due to its low cost and wide availability, it has become an extremely relevant marker.

Higher Rates of Complicated Appendicitis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Year-to-Year Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted presentation, management strategies, and patient outcomes of numerous medical conditions. The aim of this study is to perform a year-to-year comparison of clinical outcomes of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) before and during the pandemic.

METHODS

Patients treated for AA during the initial 12-mo period of the pandemic at our institute were compared to those treated for AA during the 12-mo period before. Clinical and laboratory parameters, treatment strategies, intraoperative findings, pathology reports, and postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 541 patients presented with AA. The median (interquartile range) age was 28 (21-40) y and 292 (54%) were males. 262 (48%) patients presented during the pre-COVID-19 period, while 279 patients (52%) presented during the COVID 19 pandemic. The groups were comparable for baseline clinical data and imaging results upon index admission. There was no significant difference in rate of nonoperative treatment between the Pre-COVID-19 and During-COVID-19 eras (51% versus 53%, P = 0.6) as well as the success rate of such treatment (95.4% versus 96.4%, P = 0.3). Significantly more patients presented with a periappendicular abscess during COVID-19 (4.6% versus 1.1%, P = 0.01) and median (interquartile range) operative time was significantly longer (78 (61-90) versus 32.5 (27-45) min, P < 0.001). Pathology reports revealed a higher rate of perforated appendicitis during COVID-19 (27.4% versus 10.2%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AA present with higher rates of perforated and complicated appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. The success rates of nonoperative management in selected patients with noncomplicated AA did not change during the pandemic and is a safe, feasible, option.

Outpatient Non-operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Non-inferiority Study

INTRODUCTION

Non-operative management (NOM) of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is a well-established alternative to upfront surgery. The administration of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics is usually performed in hospital, and only one study described outpatient NOM. The aim of this multicentre retrospective non-inferiority study was to evaluate both safety and non-inferiority of outpatient compared to inpatient NOM in uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

The study included 668 consecutive patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients were treated according to the surgeon's preference: 364 upfront appendectomy, 157 inpatient NOM (inNOM), and 147 outpatient NOM (outNOM). The primary endpoint was the 30-day appendectomy rate, with a non-inferiority limit of 5%. Secondary endpoints were negative appendectomy rate, 30-day unplanned emergency department (ED) visits, and length of stay.

RESULTS

30-day appendectomies were 16 (10.9%) in the outNOM group and 23 (14.6%) in the inNOM group (p = 0.327). OutNOM was non-inferior to inNOM with a risk difference of-3.80% 97.5% CI (- 12.57; 4.97). No difference was found between inNOM and outNOM groups for the number of complicated appendicitis (3 vs. 5) and negative appendectomy (1 vs. 0). Twenty-six (17.7%) outNOM patients required an unplanned ED visit after a median of 1 (1-4) days. In the outNOM group, the mean cumulative in-hospital stay was 0.89 (1.94) days compared with 3.94 (2.17) days in the inNOM group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient NOM was non-inferior to inpatient NOM with regard to the 30-day appendectomy rate, while a shorter hospital stay was found in the outNOM group. Further, studies are required to confirm these findings.

Incidence of appendiceal neoplasms in appendectomy patients

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management has been suggested as a therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis. Notwithstanding, the risk of missing an appendiceal tumor must be considered, being the surgical piece crucial to rule out neoplasms. Therefore, we aim to determine the incidence of appendiceal neoplasms in patients with acute appendicitis, tumor types and the importance of the anatomopathological study of the surgical piece.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study in which we described patients who underwent emergent appendectomy with histopathological findings of appendiceal neoplasms from January 2012 to September 2018. Descriptive analysis included demographic variables, diagnostic methods, and surgical techniques.

RESULTS

2993 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis who underwent an emergency appendectomy. 64 neoplasms of the appendix were found with an incidence of 2,14%. 67.2% were women, the mean age was 46,4 years (± 19.5). The most frequent appendiceal neoplasms were neuroendocrine tumors (42,2%), followed by appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (35,9%), sessile serrated adenomas (18,8%), and adenocarcinomas (3,1%). In 89,1% of the cases, acute appendicitis was determined by imaging, and 14% of cases were suspected intraoperatively. Appendectomy was performed in 78,1% without additional procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendiceal tumors are rare and must be ruled out in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. The incidence of incidental neoplasms is higher in this study than in the previously reported series. This information must be included in decision-making when considering treatment options for acute appendicitis.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Decision Aid for Acute Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be increasingly asked to choose between surgery and antibiotic management. We developed a novel decision aid for patients in the emergency department (ED) with acute appendicitis who are facing this choice. We describe the development of the decision aid and an initial feasibility study of its implementation in a busy tertiary care ED.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prepost survey analysis comparing patients before and after standardized implementation of the decision aid. Patients were surveyed about their experience making treatment decisions after discharge from the hospital. The primary outcome measure was the total score on the decisional conflict scale (; 0-100; lower scores better).

RESULTS

The study included 24 participants (12 in the predecision aid period; 12 in the post period). Only 33% of participants in each group knew antibiotics were a treatment option prior to arriving at the ED. Prior to implementing the use of decision aid, only 75% of patients reported being told antibiotics were a treatment option, while this increased to 100% after implementation of the decision aid. The mean total decisional conflict scalescores were similar in the pre and post periods (mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: -13 - 13, P > 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

This novel appendicitis decision aid was effectively integrated into clinical practice and helped toinform patients about multiple treatment options. These data support further large-scale testing of the decision aid as part of standardized pathways for the management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Trends in the mortality, incidence and disability-adjusted life-years of appendicitis in EU15+ countries: an observational study of the Global Burden of Disease Database, 1990-2019

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis places a substantial burden on healthcare systems, with acute appendicitis alone being the most common abdominal surgical emergency worldwide. Further characterisation of the disease burden in EU15+ countries may help optimise the distribution of healthcare resources. The aim of this observational study was to assess the trends in mortality, incidence and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of appendicitis across European Union (EU) 15+ countries between the years 1990 and 2019, Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A589 .

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs), age-standardised incidence rates (ASIRs) and DALYs data for appendicitis in males and females were extracted from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Temporal trends within the study period were analysed using Joinpoint regression analysis.

RESULTS

The median ASMRs across EU15+ countries in 2019 were 0.08/100 000 and 0.13/100 000 for females and males, respectively. Between 1990 and 2019 the median percentage change in ASMR was -52.12% for females and -53.18% in males. The median ASIRs in 2019 for females and males were 251/100 000 and 278/100 000, respectively, with a median percentage change of +7.22% for females and +3.78% for males during the observation period. Decreasing trends in DALYs were observed over the 30-year study period, with median percentage changes of -23.57% and -33.81% for females and males, respectively, Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A589 .

CONCLUSION

Overall, a general trend of decreasing appendicitis ASMRs and DALYs was observed across EU15+ countries, despite small overall increases in appendicitis ASIRs, Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A589 . Variations in both diagnostic and management strategies over the study period are likely contributory to the changing trends.

A Study of Misconceptions About Appendicitis Among the Resident Population of the Aseer Region

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is a common abdominal emergency requiring swift medical intervention. Misconceptions about this condition can lead to delayed diagnosis and potentially life-threatening complications. In the Aseer region of Saudi Arabia, where healthcare accessibility and awareness levels vary, addressing such misconceptions is of paramount importance. The aim of this study is to investigate and identify the prevalent misconceptions regarding appendicitis among the resident population of the Aseer region. Understanding the prevalent misconceptions and knowledge gaps is essential to develop targeted educational interventions and enhance public awareness.

METHODS

This study utilized a cross-sectional study design to investigate misconceptions about appendicitis among residents in the Aseer region. Over a period of three months, 329 Aseer region resident population were interviewed. The symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive measures of appendicitis were all covered in a questionnaire that was created to gather information on people's knowledge of appendicitis. Data were collected using an online questionnaire. Descriptive analysis was performed using frequencies and percentages, while inferential analysis employed appropriate statistical tests such as chi-square.

RESULTS

 The study's 329 participants were made up of 56% men and 44% women. 40% of the sample size was between the ages of 18 and 30, 26% were between the ages of 31 and 40, 15% were between the ages of 41 and 50, and 10% were above 50 years, with those under the age of 18 years accounting for the smallest proportion (9%). The majority of the respondents (37%) were college graduates, 25% were college students, 23% were in high school and 15% were in middle school. Chi-square tests were conducted to examine the associations between background knowledge and pain area, as well as between background knowledge and source of information. For the association between background knowledge and pain area, the Chi-square test yielded a significant result (X² = 9.104, p = 0.028); the Chi-square test also revealed a significant result (X² = 8.078, p = 0.044) between background knowledge and the source of information about appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

The analysis suggests a notable knowledge gap among the participants, with a significant portion displaying limited understanding or responding with "I don't know" when queried about appendicitis. It is important to note that this observation includes middle school students, who may be too young to be expected to possess knowledge about medical conditions. Additionally, there appears to be gender-related variation in opinions, misconceptions, and understanding regarding appendicitis.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants.

Objective

To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022.

Intervention

Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants.

Results

Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Predicting complicated appendicitis is possible without the use of sectional imaging-presenting the NoCtApp score

PURPOSE

Appendicitis is among the most common acute conditions treated by general surgery. While uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) can be treated delayed or even non-operatively, complicated appendicitis (CA) is a serious condition with possible long-term morbidity that should be managed with urgent appendectomy. Distinguishing both conditions is usually done with computed tomography. The goal of this study was to develop a model to reliably predict CA with widespread available clinical and laboratory parameters and without the use of sectional imaging.

METHODS

Data from 1132 consecutive patients treated for appendicitis between 2014 and 2021 at a tertiary care hospital were used for analyses. Based on year of treatment, the data was divided into training (n = 696) and validation (n = 436) samples. Using the development sample, candidate predictors for CA-patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, duration of symptoms, white blood count (WBC), total bilirubin and C-reactive protein (CRP) on admission and free fluid on ultrasound-were first investigated using univariate logistic regression models and then included in a multivariate model. The final development model was tested on the validation sample.

RESULTS

In the univariate analysis age, BMI, ASA score, symptom duration, WBC, bilirubin, CRP, and free fluid each were statistically significant predictors of CA (each p < 0.001) while gender was not (p = 0.199). In the multivariate analysis BMI and bilirubin were not predictive and therefore not included in the final development model which was built from 696 patients. The final development model was significant (x2 = 304.075, p < 0.001) with a sensitivity of 61.7% and a specificity of 92.1%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 80.4% with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 82.0%. The receiver operator characteristic of the final model had an area under the curve of 0.861 (95% confidence interval 0.830-0.891, p < 0.001. We simplified this model to create the NoCtApp score. Patients with a point value of ≤ 2 had a NPV 95.8% for correctly ruling out CA.

CONCLUSIONS

Correctly identifying CA is helpful for optimizing patient treatment when they are diagnosed with appendicitis. Our logistic regression model can aid in correctly distinguishing UA and CA even without utilizing computed tomography.

Early surgery for perforated appendicitis: Are we moving the needle on postoperative abscess?

BACKGROUND

Perforated appendicitis is often managed nonoperatively though upfront surgery is becoming more common. We describe postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing surgery at their index hospitalization for perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

We used the 2016-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy or partial colectomy. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI).

RESULTS

132,443 patients with appendicitis underwent immediate surgery. Of 14.1% patients with perforated appendicitis, 84.3% underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Intra-abdominal abscess rates were lowest after laparoscopic appendectomy (9.4%). Open appendectomy (OR 5.14, 95% CI 4.06-6.51) and laparoscopic partial colectomy (OR 4.60, 95% CI 2.38-8.89) were associated with higher likelihoods of SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Upfront surgical management of perforated appendicitis is now predominantly approached by laparoscopy, often without bowel resection. Postoperative complications occurred less frequently with laparoscopic appendectomy compared to other approaches. Laparoscopic appendectomy during the index hospitalization is an effective approach to perforated appendicitis.

One-year follow-up of conservative management of appendicitis: results from a single centre during extended lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

Conservative management with antibiotics was recommended by the UK Surgical Royal Colleges early in the COVID-19 pandemic as the first-line treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

This is a prospective single-centre cohort study of patients aged 16 years or over, diagnosed clinically and confirmed radiologically with acute appendicitis in a secondary care setting who were initially treated conservatively with antibiotics. The primary outcome was the response to conservative management with antibiotics. Secondary outcomes were: antibiotic duration; operative rates; surgical approach (open, laparoscopic or conversion to open); complication rates; COVID-19 positive rate; rates of readmission within 12 months; and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were included in the study, 67 of whom were male. Median age was 37 (range 17-93) years. A further 28 patients were excluded because of a decision to manage operatively on the index admission or because of other diagnoses. Thirty-three patients (30.3%) had surgery on the index admission after failed conservative management and 15 (13.8%) had surgery on readmission. On histology, 32/48 patients (66.7%) had a diagnosis of complicated appendicitis and 18/48 (37.5%) had a confirmed appendicolith.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high readmission rate (47/109; 43.1%) for surgery, a radiological drain or conservative management within the first year following initial conservative management. There is a significant risk of recurrence of symptoms, particularly in the presence of an appendicolith. Laparoscopic appendicectomy should be the first-line treatment, with conservative management reserved for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who are COVID-19 positive or have comorbidities.

The Promise of Epigenetics Research in the Treatment of Appendiceal Neoplasms

Appendiceal cancers (AC) are a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies. Historically, appendiceal neoplasms have been grouped with colorectal cancers (CRC), and treatment strategies have been modeled after CRC management guidelines due to their structural similarities and anatomical proximity. However, the two have marked differences in biological behavior and treatment response, and evidence suggests significant discrepancies in their respective genetic profiles. In addition, while the WHO classification for appendiceal cancers is currently based on traditional histopathological criteria, studies have demonstrated that histomorphology does not correlate with survival or treatment response in AC. Due to their rarity, appendiceal cancers have not been studied as extensively as other gastrointestinal cancers. However, their incidence has been increasing steadily over the past decade, making it crucial to identify new and more effective strategies for detection and treatment. Recent efforts to map and understand the molecular landscape of appendiceal cancers have unearthed a wealth of information that has made it evident that appendiceal cancers possess a unique molecular profile, distinct from other gastrointestinal cancers. This review focuses on the epigenetic landscape of epithelial appendiceal cancers and aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge of epigenetic changes across different appendiceal cancer subtypes, highlighting the challenges as well as the promise of employing epigenetics in the quest for the detection of biomarkers, therapeutic targets, surveillance markers, and predictors of treatment response and survival in epithelial appendiceal neoplasms.

The Vermiform Appendix and Its Pathologies

The vermiform appendix is a muscular cylindrical structure originating near the junction of the cecum and ileum, averaging 9 cm (5-35 cm) in size. As the most mobile viscera, it can adopt several positions, the most common being the retrocecal position. Perceived as an atavistic organ lacking physiological relevance, the vermiform appendix appears to be involved in immune function, serving in the maturation of B lymphocytes and the production of immunoglobulin A, in endocrine function, excreting amines and hormones in the 2-3 mL of mucus secreted daily, and in digestive function, by storing beneficial bacteria from where they can recolonize the colon. With a lumen of about 6 mm, the vermiform appendix has a reduced storage capacity, so any blockage of the appendix with fecoliths (fecaliths), seeds derailed from the colon, or enlarged lymph nodes prevents drainage and intraluminal accumulation of secreted mucus. Unable to relax, the appendix wall severely limits its intraluminal volume, so mucus accumulation leads to inflammation of the appendix, known generically as appendicitis. In addition, the vermiform appendix may be the site of the development of neoplastic processes, which may or may not involve mucus production, some of which can significantly affect the standard of living and ultimately lead to death. In general, mucinous tumors may have a better prognosis than non-mucinous tumors. This review takes a comprehensive path, starting by describing the anatomy and embryology of the vermiform appendix and further detailing its inflammatory pathologies, pathologies related to congenital anomalies, and appendix tumors, thus creating an up-to-date framework for better understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of these health problems.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the electronic database including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang. The primary outcomes included complication-free treatment success at 1 year, complications, surgical complications, and the complicated appendicitis rates. Secondary outcomes included negative appendicitis, length of hospital stay, the quality of life at 1 month, and the impact of an appendicolith on antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled studies were included. Compared with surgery group, the antibiotic group decreased the complication-free treatment success at 1 year (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; z = 3.65; p = 0.000). Statistically significance was existed between antibiotic group and surgical group with both surgical types(open and laparoscopic) (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.31-0.58; z = 5.36; p = 0.000), while no between the antibiotic treatment and laparoscopic surgery (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41-1.24; z = 1.19; p = 0.236). There was no statistically significant differences between two groups of surgical complications (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.70-2.73; z = 0.93; p = 0.353), the complicated appendicitis rate (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.36-1.42; z = 0.96; p = 0.338), negative appendectomy rate (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.69-1.79; z = 0.43; p = 0.670), duration of hospital stay (SMD 0.08; 95%CI -0.11-0.27; z = 0.80; p = 0.422), and quality of life at 1 month (SMD 0.09; 95%CI -0.03-0.20; z = 1.53; p = 0.127). However, in the antibiotic treatment group, appendicolith rates were statistically higher in those whose symptoms did not improve (RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.28-6.74; z = 2.55; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the cure rate of antibiotics is lower than surgery, antibiotic treatment is still a reasonable option for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis who do not want surgery without having to worry about complications or complicating the original illness.

A brief overview of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy as an optimal surgical procedure for patients with acute appendicitis: still a long way to go

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) has become a good alternative to the traditional surgical treatment of acute appendicitis, due to its advantages of small incision, mild postoperative pain, short hospital stay, and good cosmetic effect. However, the further application of SPLA has been restricted by its relatively long operating time, high level of operating difficulty, and increased equipment and technical requirements. Clinical teams worldwide have attempted to improve and optimize SPLA technical protocols and equipment to maintain stable intraoperative pneumoperitoneal pressure, improve the 'triangle relationship' of operating angles, and develop new surgical procedures with less trauma and higher cost-effectiveness. Here, new SPLA techniques reported over the past decade are reviewed and compared, with the aim of providing new insights into technical improvements, equipment upgrades and clinical studies in the coming years.

Complex Patient Perspectives on Evolving Diverticulitis Treatment Patient Perspectives on Diverticulitis

Background

Despite evidence that antibiotics may not be necessary to treat acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, they remain the mainstay of treatment in the United States. A randomized controlled trial evaluating antibiotic effectiveness could accelerate implementation of an antibiotic-free treatment strategy, but patients may be unwilling to participate.

Objective

This study aims to assess patients' attitudes regarding participation in a randomized trial of antibiotics versus placebo for acute diverticulitis, including willingness to participate.

Design

This is a mixed-methods study with qualitative and descriptive methods.

Settings

Interviews were conducted in a quaternary care emergency department and surveys were administered virtually through a web-based portal.

Patients

Patients with either current or previous acute uncomplicated diverticulitis participated.

Interventions

Patients underwent semi-structured interviews or completed a web-based survey. Main Outcome measures: Rates of willingness to participate in a randomized controlled trial was measured. Salient factors related to healthcare decision-making were also identified and analyzed.

Results

Thirteen patients completed an interview. Reasons to participate included a desire to help others or contribute to scientific knowledge. Doubts about the efficacy of observation as a treatment method were the main barrier to participation. In a survey of 218 subjects, 62% of respondents reported willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial. "What my doctor thinks," followed by "What I've experienced in the past" were the most important decision-making factors.

Limitations

There is possible selection bias inherent to using a study to evaluate willingness to participate in a study. Also, the population sampled was disproportionately White compared to the population affected by diverticulitis.

Conclusions

Patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis maintain complex and varying perceptions of the use of antibiotics. Most surveyed patients would be willing to participate in a trial of antibiotics versus placebo. Our findings support a trial's feasibility and facilitate an informed approach to recruitment and consent.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.

METHODS

We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.

RESULTS

The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Impact of socioeconomic status and road distance to hospital on perforated appendicitis rates at a large rural referral centre

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status and distance from hospital have been shown to be associated with poor surgical outcomes related to acute appendicitis. Indigenous populations experience greater socioeconomic disadvantages and poorer healthcare access than their non-Indigenous counterparts. This study aims to determine whether socioeconomic status and road distance from hospital are predictors of perforated appendicitis. It will also compare surgical outcomes of appendicitis between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.

METHODS

We performed a 5-year retrospective study of all patients who underwent appendicectomy for acute appendicitis at a large rural referral centre. Patients were identified using the hospital database for theatre events coded as appendicectomy. Regression modelling was used to determine if socioeconomic status and road distance from hospital were associated with perforated appendicitis. The outcomes of appendicitis between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations were compared.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and twenty-two patients were included in this study. The rate of perforated appendicitis was not significantly impacted by socioeconomic status (OR 0.993, 95% CI 0.98-1.006, P = 0.316) or road distance from hospital (OR = 0.911, 95% CI 0.999-1.001, P = 0.911). Indigenous patients did not have a significantly higher rate of perforation compared to non-Indigenous patients (P = 0.849) despite having overall lower socioeconomic status (P = 0.005) and longer road distance from hospital (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Lower socioeconomic status and longer road distance from hospital were not associated with an increased risk of perforated appendicitis. Indigenous populations have poorer socioeconomic status and longer road distance to hospital but did not have higher rates of perforated appendicitis.

Comparing Outcomes of Appendectomy Versus Non-operative Antibiotic Therapy for Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common etiologies of an acute abdomen in the emergency department and first-line standard surgical care for the condition has recently been reconsidered. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of surgical intervention versus non-operative antibiotic therapy in the treatment of acute appendicitis in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. The search included all studies until January 15th, 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Data were independently extracted by the authors of the study. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen's Q test for heterogeneous effects was performed to determine if fixed or random-effects models were appropriate for use.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials investigating a total of 3703 acute appendicitis patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In the systematic review, eleven RCTs demonstrated that appendectomy had improved effectiveness compared to non-operative antibiotic management. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing appendectomy had significantly higher treatment effectiveness compared with antibiotics-only treatment (98.4% vs. 73.3%, P < .0001). The meta-analysis did demonstrate a significant .54-day reduction in hospital length of stay for the appendectomy group compared to the non-operative antibiotic therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical intervention is associated with increased effectiveness of treatment and reduced in-hospital length of stay among patients with acute appendicitis. Guidelines established by institutions and surgical organizations should indicate appendectomy as the standard and superior treatment option for patients presenting with acute appendicitis.

Outcomes of Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Acute Appendicitis in Older Adults in the US

Importance

Although the incidence of acute appendicitis among adults 65 years and older is high, these patients are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials comparing nonoperative vs operative management of appendicitis; it is unclear whether current trial data can be used to guide treatment in older adults.

Objective

To compare outcomes following nonoperative vs operative management of appendicitis in older adults and assess whether they differ from results in younger patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used US hospital admissions data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2017. Of 723 889 adult patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, 474 845 with known procedure date who survived 24 hours postprocedure and did not have inflammatory bowel disease were included (43 846 who were treated nonoperatively and 430 999 with appendectomy) were included. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to April 2022.

Exposures

Nonoperative vs operative management.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was incidence of posttreatment complications. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay, and inpatient costs. Differences were estimated using inverse probability weighting of the propensity score with sensitivity analysis to quantify effects of unmeasured confounding.

Results

The median (IQR) age in the overall cohort was 39 (27-54) years, and 29 948 participants (51.3%) were female. In patients 65 years and older, nonoperative management was associated with a 3.72% decrease in risk of complications (95% CI, 2.99-4.46) and a 1.82% increase in mortality (95% CI, 1.49-2.15) along with increased length of hospitalization and costs. Outcomes in patients younger than 65 years were significantly different than in older adults, with only minor differences between nonoperative and operative management with respect to morbidity and mortality, and smaller differences in length of hospitalization and costs. Morbidity and mortality results were somewhat sensitive to bias from unmeasured confounding.

Conclusions and Relevance

Nonoperative management was associated with reduced complications in older but not younger patients; however, operative management was associated with reduced mortality, hospital length of stay, and overall costs across all age groups. The different outcomes of nonoperative vs operative management of appendicitis in older and younger adults highlights the need for a randomized clinical trial to determine the best approach for managing appendicitis in older patients.

Antibiotic use in acute mesenteric ischemia: a review of the evidence and call to action

Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate. The standard practice after making the diagnosis includes aggressive resuscitation, anticoagulation, followed by revascularization and resection of necrotic bowel. The role of empiric antibiotics in the management of AMI is not well defined in the literature. This review article aims to examine our current understanding on this matter, based on bench research and clinical studies. It is demonstrated in animal study model that the ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury damages intestinal epithelium, and subsequently lead to barrier dysfunction, a condition that can support bacterial translocation through a complex interplay between the intestinal epithelium, the intestinal immune system and the intestine's endogenous bacterial population. Based on this mechanism, it is possible that the use of antibiotics may help mitigate the consequences of I/R injury, which is examined in few animal studies. In clinical practice, many guidelines support the use of prophylactic antibiotics, based on a meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefit of antibiotics in multi-organ dysfunction syndrome. However, there is no direct reference to AMI in this meta-analysis. Most clinical studies that focus on AMI and mentions the use of antibiotics are retrospective and single institution, and very few comments on the role of antibiotics in their discussions. We conclude that there is limited evidence in literature to support the use of prophylactic antibiotic in AMI to improve outcome. More clinical studies with high level of evidence and basic science research are needed to improve our understanding on this topic and ultimately help build a better clinical pathway for patients with AMI.

Concurrent SARS-COV-19 and acute appendicitis: Management and outcomes across United States children's hospitals

BACKGROUND

Nonoperative management of acute appendicitis is a safe and effective alternative to appendectomy, though rates of treatment failure and disease recurrence are significant. The purpose of this study was to determine whether COVID-19-positive children with acute appendicitis were more likely to undergo nonoperative management when compared to COVID-19-negative peers and to compare clinical outcomes and healthcare use for these groups.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of children <18 years with acute appendicitis across 45 US Children's Hospitals during the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic was performed. Operative management was defined as appendectomy or percutaneous drain placement, whereas nonoperative management was defined as admission with antibiotics alone. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression using an exact matched cohort was used to determine the association between COVID-19 positivity and nonoperative management. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, length of stay, nonoperative management failure rates, and hospital variation in nonoperative management.

RESULTS

Of 17,481 children in the cohort, 581 (3.3%) were positive for COVID-19. The odds of nonoperative management was significantly higher in the COVID-19-positive group (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 13.4 [10.7-16.8], P < .001). Patients positive for COVID-19 had increased odds of intensive care unit admission (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.78 [2.01-7.12], P < .001) and longer length of stay (median 2 days vs 1 day, P < .001). Hospital rates of nonoperative management ranged from 0% to 100% for COVID-19-positive patients and 0% to 42% for COVID-19-negative patients.

CONCLUSION

Children with concurrent acute appendicitis and COVID-19 positivity are significantly more likely to undergo nonoperative management. Both groups experience infrequent nonoperative management failure rates and rare intensive care unit admissions. Marked hospital variability in nonoperative management practices was demonstrated.

Age-related disparities and trends in national healthcare spending for management of appendicitis in the United States: A retrospective cost-analysis

BACKGROUND

Changes in clinical care for appendicitis have impacted healthcare use associated with treatment. We evaluated national trends and assessed factors associated with healthcare costs for appendicitis in the United States.

DESIGN

The Disease Expenditure Project, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the National Inpatient Sample were used to estimate total national expenditures, per-capita costs for incident cases, and factors associated with inpatient costs for appendicitis management, respectively. The national estimates of appendicitis costs were obtained from 1996 to 2016. Appendicitis incidence was estimated to calculate per-capita costs. After application of survey weights for the stratified sample design, 191,180 weighted discharges for appendicitis from the 2016 National Inpatient Sample study were evaluated. The Disease Expenditure Project and the Global Burden of Disease study were used to estimate total and per-capita spending. Temporal trends were evaluated using joinpoint regression, expressed as annual percent change. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate patient factors associated with total hospital charges.

RESULTS

In 2016, total spending on appendicitis was $9.3 billion (95% confidence interval: $8.0-$10.8], a 2-fold increase from $4.7 billion ($4.0-$5.3) in 1996. Per-capita spending decreased significantly after 2011 (annual percent change -3.7% [-4.4% to -2.9%]). Patients ≥65 years accounted for 64.1% (61.1%-67.3%) of total spending for appendicitis. The hospital charges for older patients were significantly higher among those undergoing appendectomy.

CONCLUSION

Overall healthcare spending for appendicitis has doubled from 1996 to 2016, but per capita spending has decreased since 2011, driven by improved efficiency of inpatient care. Nearly two-thirds of spending is on patients ≥65 years, with significantly higher costs associated with surgical management in this population.

Verbal Descriptions of the Probability of Treatment Complications Lead to High Variability in Risk Perceptions: A Survey Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether different methods for communicating the probability of treatment complications for operative and nonoperative appendicitis treatments result in differences in risk perception.

BACKGROUND

Surgeons must communicate the probability of treatment complications to patients, and how risks are communicated may impact the accuracy and variability in patient risk perceptions and ultimately their decision making.

METHODS

A series of online surveys of American adults communicated the probability of complications associated with surgical or antibiotic treatment of acute appendicitis. Probability was communicated with verbal descriptors (eg, "uncommon"), point estimates (eg, "3% risk"), or risk ranges (eg, "1% to 5%"). Respondents then estimated the probability of a complication for a "typical patient with appendicitis." The Fligner-Killeen test of homogeneity of variance was used to compare the variability in respondent risk estimates based on the method of probability communication.

RESULTS

Among 296 respondents, variance in probability estimates was significantly higher when verbal descriptions were used compared to point estimates ( P < 0.001) or risk ranges ( P < 0.001). Identical verbal descriptors produced meaningfully different risk estimates depending on the complication being described. For example, "common" was perceived as a 45.6% for surgical site infection but 61.7% for antibiotic-associated diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

Verbal probability descriptors are associated with widely varying and inaccurate perceptions about treatment risks. Surgeons should consider alternative ways to communicate probability during informed consent and shared decision-making discussions.