The Role of Alvarado Score in Predicting Acute Appendicitis and Its Severity in Correlation to Histopathology: A Retrospective Study in a Qatar Population

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Modified Alvarado Score and Serum C-reactive Protein in Acute Appendicitis

Background The Alvarado score is a diagnostic tool to stratify patients on the likelihood of acute appendicitis based on signs, symptoms, and laboratory values. The validity of this score as compared to other diagnostic measures for acute appendicitis is questionable. The current study addresses the use of a modified Alvarado score (MAS) in conjunction with the widely used acute phase reactant biomarker serum C-reactive protein (CRP) for diagnostic accuracy. Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy in terms of specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of the combined MAS/CRP keeping histopathological diagnosis of acute appendicitis as a gold standard. Methods This is a cross-sectional validation study carried out in the Department of Surgery, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad. A total of 230 patients undergoing appendicectomy for appendicitis were included in the study through non-probability consecutive sampling, with positive histology undetermined. Prior to surgery, the preoperative Alvarado score was calculated and CRP was determined. The appendix removed at surgery was subjected to histopathological examination and on the basis of its report patients were postoperatively diagnosed either as positive or negative for acute appendicitis. Results The mean age of the patients was 22.66±7.48 years. There were 137 (59.6%) males and 93 (40.4%) females. One hundred eighty-three (79.6%) patients had a positive CRP and 47 (20.4%) had a negative CRP. Alvarado scores were calculated and there were 28 (12.1%) patients with a score of ≤ 6, and 202 with a score of 7-9. The appendix removed at surgery was subjected to histopathological examination. One hundred ninety-five (84.7%) patients were positive for acute appendicitis on histopathology and 35 (15.2%) had normal appendix on histopathology. Among the 195 patients with acute appendicitis 178 (91.3%) had positive CRP/MAS and 17 (87.17%) had negative CRP/MAS. Among the 182 patients with positive CRP/MAS; 178 (97.8%) had acute appendicitis and 4 (2.2%) had normal appendix. Among the 48 patients with negative CRP/MAS; 17 (35.4%) had acute appendicitis and 31 (64.3%) had normal appendix. The calculated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 91.2%, 88.5%. 91.8%, and 64.5%, respectively. Conclusion MAS used in combination with CRP is a highly sensitive tool for use in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and is especially useful in resource-limited healthcare settings and for assistance in decision-making for doctors with less clinical experience.

Assessment of Alvarado criteria, ultrasound, CRP, and their combination in patients with suspected acute appendicitis: a single centre study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common reasons for visiting the emergency room. The lack of proper diagnosis and rapid treatment of AA may lead to severe complications such as intestinal perforation and increased mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado criteria, ultrasound, and CRP criteria in comparison with their combined use in patients with suspected AA who presented to the emergency room.

METHODS

In this diagnostic accuracy study, 1411 patients with suspected AA who presented to the emergency department of Firoozabadi Hospital affiliated with Iran University of Medical Sciences and underwent appendectomy from October 2019 to October 2021 were examined. Nine hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. All patients were assessed using Alvarado, CRP, and ultrasound. The definitive diagnosis of AA was based on pathological findings and was considered the gold standard. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA VER 11.5. The diagnostic accuracy for each group was compared using the Pearson chi-square test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean age was 29.57 ± 13.66 years. The sensitivity and specificity of Alvarado in the diagnostic accuracy of appendicectomy were 75.2% and 61.3% (CI = 95%), respectively. The sensitivity of ultrasound and CRP for predicting appendicitis was significantly higher than the Alvarado criteria. The diagnostic accuracy for CRP was significantly higher than ultrasound (64.9% vs. 60.7%, P: 0.003). The diagnostic accuracy of the simultaneous use of Alvarado + CRP and CRP + Ultrasound was significantly higher than that of Alvarado + ultrasound. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the simultaneous use of all three criteria together (Alvarado + Ultrasound + CRP) were estimated to be 94.9%, 25.8%, and 81.5% (CI = 95%), respectively, which were significantly higher than the use of other criteria.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the Alvarado criteria had inadequate diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy for diagnosing acute appendicitis. The diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis increases to over 90% using the three Alvarado, ultrasound, and CRP criteria at the same time.

Validation of the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) scoring system for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis among Ethiopian patients: a multi-institutional observational study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in Ethiopian clinical practice. Although a multitude of scoring systems have been used in clinical practice, none have been universally validated. The purpose of this study was to validate the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) scoring system in the Ethiopian context.

METHODS

A total of 315 consecutive patients who presented with a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis and were planned to undergo appendectomy were studied. All the studied patients had diagnostic sonography and underwent the RIPASA scoring system. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of RIPASA and ultrasound results with intraoperative gross examinations.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 27.4 ± 11.5 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.6:1. The concordance between ultrasound and RIPASA for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis was 93.6%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of RIPASA were 96.2%, 30.8%, 93.9%, and 42.1%, respectively. Similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 95.3%, 27.8%, 95.6%, and 26.3%, respectively. White cell count and RIPASA scores were weakly correlated with intraoperative stages of acute appendicitis, r(313) = 0.18, p = 0.001, and r(313) = 0.129, p = 0.022, respectively. The rate of a negative appendectomy was 6%.

CONCLUSION

RIPASA and ultrasound had equivalent performance in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. In both cases, the rate of negative appendectomy was low enough to validate RIPASA for clinical practice in low-income institutions where sonographic diagnosis by a conventionally trained radiologist is not available.

RAMA-WeRA Risk Score in Predicting the Ruptured Appendicitis in Emergency Department; a Multicenter Study for External Validation

Introduction

Distinguishing between ruptured and non-ruptured acute appendicitis presents a significant challenge. This study aimed to validate the accuracy of RAMA-WeRA Risk Score in predicting ruptured appendicitis (RA) in emergency department.

Methods

This study was a multicenter diagnostic accuracy study conducted across six hospitals in Thailand from February 1, 2022, to January 20, 2023. The eligibility criteria included individuals aged >15 years suspected of acute appendicitis, presenting to the ED, and having an available pathology report following appendectomy or intraoperative diagnosis by the surgeon. We assessed the screening performance characteristics of RAMA-WeRA Risk Score, in detecting the ruptured appendicitis (RA) cases.

Results

860 patients met the study criteria. 168 (19.38%) had RA and 692 (80.62%) patients had non-RA. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) of RAMA-WeRA Risk Score was 75.11% (95% CI: 71.10, 79.11). The RAMA-WeRA Risk Score > 6 points (high-risk group) demonstrated a positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.22 in detecting the ruptured cases. The sensitivity and specificity of score in > 6 cutoff point was 43.8% (95%CI: 36.2, 51.6) and 86.4% (95%CI: 83.6, 88.9), respectively.

Conclusions

The RAMA-WeRA Risk Score can predict rupture in patients presenting with suspected acute appendicitis in the emergency department with total accuracy of 75% for high-risk cases.

Significance of Histopathology of Appendectomy Specimens: Analysis From a Teaching Hospital of Pakistan

Background Histopathology of a tissue specimen plays a crucial role in formulating the final diagnosis of any disease. It confirms whether the histopathological findings are in correspondence with the clinical diagnosis and thus suggests an optimal management plan. Standard surgical practices guide that every human tissue specimen must undergo postoperative tissue analysis unless indicated otherwise. Objective To determine the significance of histopathology in determining the final diagnosis of appendectomy specimens. Materials and methods This retrospective clinical study conducted in May 2022 included 100 patients operated for appendectomy from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, in the emergency room of the Department of General Surgery, Unit-III, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Data were retrieved from patients' records and the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). A Google Forms-based pro forma (Google, Mountain View, CA) was generated to include the demographic details, clinical manifestations, and histopathology reports of the patients. Descriptive analysis was completed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Results Fifty-two patients were females out of the total 100. The mean age at presentation was 23.02 ± 12.02 years. Of the samples, 54% were not sent for histopathology. Among the remaining ones, 27% of cases were proven to be acute appendicitis. Alvarado score was 7-10 in 50% of patients. Other lesions proven by histopathology were appendiceal phlegmon (4%), perforated appendix (4%), mucocele (1%), carcinoid tumor (1%), tuberculosis (1%), and adenocarcinoma (1%). Conclusions Histopathological analysis is the gold standard for the tissue diagnosis of a disease. The high percentage of the samples not sent for histopathology is alarming since the appendix is not only a site for inflammatory pathologies but for neoplastic lesions as well. This practice depicts that the incidence of non-inflammatory pathologies is being ignored by healthcare professionals and there is a dire need to emphasize the significance of acquiring histopathology reports for the specimens of appendectomy in all circumstances.

Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Cross-sectional Study on Alvarado's Score from a Low Income Country

Background

Alvarado score is the most widely used scoring system for diagnosing acute appendicitis, globally. There have been concerns regarding the diagnostic accuracy of this score as it was shown to have lower sensitivity in certain populations like Blacks and Asians. Despite its wide clinical use in the Ethiopian set up, the diagnostic accuracy of this score remained largely unexamined in this population.

Methodology

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted and all adult patients who presented with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and evaluated with a clinical impression of acute appendicitis were enrolled in the study. Data was collected by trained surgical residents over a period of six months (August 2019- January 2020) and analysed using SPSS version 25.

Results

A total of 235 patients were enrolled in this study among whom two thirds were males. The majority of the study participants (61.7%) had an Alvarado score of ≥7 while almost a quarter of them had a score of <4. The mean Alvarado score in this study was 7 ± 1.8 whereas the median and the mode were 7 and 9 respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Alvarado score were 99.1%, 55.6%, 98.2% and 62.5% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of this score was superior in males compared to females (99.3% vs 97.6% and 80% vs 25%). A score of ≥5 was found to have a sensitivity of 98.4%.

Conclusion

Alvarado score was found to have good sensitivity and positive predictive value in this study. A score of ≥5 can be used to "rule in" the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Hence, the use of Alvarado score's in the Ethiopian setup is to be encouraged.