1
|
Moltubak E, Landerholm K, Blomberg M, Andersson RE. Validation of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score during pregnancy: A nested case-control study. Acad Emerg Med 2024; 31:894-902. [PMID: 38597185 DOI: 10.1111/acem.14915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2024] [Accepted: 03/21/2024] [Indexed: 04/11/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Appendicitis poses diagnostic challenges. A correct diagnosis is important during pregnancy to avoid unnecessary surgery on the one hand and delayed surgery on the other hand, as both may negatively affect pregnancy outcomes. Clinical scores for risk-stratified management of suspected appendicitis are well established in adults but have not been validated during pregnancy. This nested case-control study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score and imaging during pregnancy. METHODS By cross-linking national Swedish health registries from a defined geographical area, we identified a cohort of 154 women who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy and a matched cohort of 232 pregnant women admitted for acute abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis but with a discharge diagnosis of nonspecific abdominal pain (NSAP). All variables were extracted from medical records. The diagnostic value of AIR score and imaging was estimated for patients with a final diagnosis of appendicitis compared with patients with negative appendectomy and NSAP patients. RESULTS The final diagnoses for the operated patients were uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in 49.4% and 26.6%, respectively, and negative appendectomy in 24.0%. Nearly half of all the patients underwent diagnostic imaging (41%), mainly by ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic imaging were 44.9% (95% CI 32.9%-57.4%) and 42.2% (95% CI 31.9%-53.1%), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of AIR score was 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.92) for all appendicitis and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.95) for complicated appendicitis. The sensitivity for complicated appendicitis was 100% at a score of ≥4. The specificity for all appendicitis was 97% at a score of ≥9. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that the AIR score may be a suitable diagnostic tool for risk stratification of pregnant women with abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis but further validation among pregnant women is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elin Moltubak
- Department of Surgery, County Hospital Ryhov, Jönköping, Sweden
- Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Kalle Landerholm
- Department of Surgery, County Hospital Ryhov, Jönköping, Sweden
- Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Marie Blomberg
- Department of Surgery, County Hospital Ryhov, Jönköping, Sweden
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Roland E Andersson
- Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
- Futurum Academy for Health and Care, Jönköping County Council, Jönköping, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cusimano MC, Liu J, Azizi P, Zipursky J, Sajewycz K, Sussman J, Kishibe T, Wong E, Ferguson SE, D'Souza R, Baxter NN. Adverse Fetal Outcomes and Maternal Mortality Following Nonobstetric Abdominopelvic Surgery in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2023; 278:e147-e157. [PMID: 34966066 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To quantify the absolute risks of adverse fetal outcomes and maternal mortality following nonobstetric abdominopelvic surgery in pregnancy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Surgery is often necessary in pregnancy, but absolute measures of risk required to guide perioperative management are lacking. METHODS We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EvidenceBased Medicine Reviews from January 1, 2000, to December 9, 2020, for observational studies and randomized trials of pregnant patients undergoing nonobstetric abdominopelvic surgery. We determined the pooled proportions of fetal loss, preterm birth, and maternal mortality using a generalized linear random/mixed effects model with a logit link. RESULTS We identified 114 observational studies (52 [46%] appendectomy, 34 [30%] adnexal, 8 [7%] cholecystectomy, 20 [17%] mixed types) reporting on 67,111 pregnant patients. Overall pooled proportions of fetal loss, preterm birth, and maternal mortality were 2.8% (95% CI 2.2-3.6), 9.7% (95% CI 8.3-11.4), and 0.04% (95% CI 0.02-0.09; 4/10,000), respectively. Rates of fetal loss and preterm birth were higher for pelvic inflammatory conditions (eg, appendectomy, adnexal torsion) than for abdominal or nonurgent conditions (eg, cholecystectomy, adnexal mass). Surgery in the second and third trimesters was associated with lower rates of fetal loss (0.1%) and higher rates of preterm birth (13.5%) than surgery in the first and second trimesters (fetal loss 2.9%, preterm birth 5.6%). CONCLUSIONS Absolute risks of adverse fetal outcomes after nonobstetric abdom- inopelvic surgery vary with gestational age, indication, and acuity. Pooled estimates derived here identify high-risk clinical scenarios, and can inform implementation of mitigation strategies and improve preoperative counselling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria C Cusimano
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School ofPublic Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jessica Liu
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Paymon Azizi
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School ofPublic Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jonathan Zipursky
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School ofPublic Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Katrina Sajewycz
- School of Medicine, Faculty ofHealth Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Jess Sussman
- School of Medicine, Faculty ofMedicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Teruko Kishibe
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Health Sciences Library, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Eric Wong
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School ofPublic Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sarah E Ferguson
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/Sinai Health Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rohan D'Souza
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital/Sinai Health Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Nancy N Baxter
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School ofPublic Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne ViC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|