Standard outpatient re-evaluation for patients not admitted to the hospital after emergency department evaluation for acute abdominal pain

Level of Knowledge and Attitude Toward Acute Abdomen Among the Public: A Nationwide Study

Introduction Treatment of patients suffering from acute abdominal pain (AAP) is often challenging due to its wide range of associated illnesses, which could delay or prevent the identification of the correct diagnosis. Multiple diagnoses should be considered, particularly those in life-threatening situations needing urgent intervention. Aim This study aimed to assess the level of knowledge among the general population related to acute abdomen and which specialty should be sought for consultation in AAP situations. Subject and methods This cross-sectional study was conducted among the general population living in Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to the Saudi population through the Google survey. The questionnaire included basic demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, etc.), perceived causes, barriers, the most common symptoms of AAP, and a five-item questionnaire to assess the general population's knowledge about AAP. Results Of the 2,703 respondents, 68.1% were females, and 42.4% were aged between 18 and 25 years old. The digestive system disorders (esophagus, stomach, intestine, and colon) were the most perceived causes that led to AAP (76.6%). The overall mean knowledge score was 1.35 (SD 1.07) out of five points. Accordingly, nearly all (87.2%) were considered to have poor knowledge, 9.5% were considered to have moderate knowledge, and only 3.3% were considered to have good knowledge. Being younger, being a male, and living in the Central Region were the factors associated with increased knowledge. Conclusion There was a lack of knowledge about AAP among the general population in Saudi Arabia. Younger age, gender males, and living in the Central Region were identified as the significant factors of increased knowledge. It is necessary to increase the knowledge of the population regarding acute abdomen. Media awareness campaigns may play a significant role in providing the necessary information to the general public.

Inefficient Admissions for Abdominal Pain Under an Acute General Surgical Unit

BACKGROUND

The acute general surgical unit (AGSU) model has become a standard of efficient acute surgical care. Whilst the AGSU has been compared to the traditional surgical model, there is a lack of research auditing referrals and admissions. This study evaluates abdominal pain referrals to AGSU and the necessity of admission.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adult abdominal pain admissions was conducted over a two-year period at a single centre in metropolitan Victoria, Australia. The data were extracted from electronic medical records and key endpoints of data included the diagnosis, length of stay, investigations and subjective pain outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1587 patients met the study criteria of which 1116 (70.3%) had a non-surgical diagnosis with the majority having non-specific abdominal pain. The non-surgical patients had a lower median length of stay (25.3 h) compared to surgical patients (44.2 h, p < 0.001). They were less likely to have an abnormal haemoglobin (p = 0.004), elevated white cell count (p = 0.02) or elevated C-reactive protein > 50 mg/L (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, surgical patients had higher odds of having a CRP > 50 mg/L (p = 0.024) and a positive imaging result (p < 0.001). The patient's pain control also correlated with length of stay.

CONCLUSION

A large population of patients with non-specific abdominal pain are admitted to AGSU. These patients do not require surgery and have a short length of stay. Incorporating a negative CRP result and negative imaging result may be utilised in conjunction with optimised analgesia to help avoid these unnecessary admissions, thereby improving AGSU efficiency and workload.

Predictors of 72-h unscheduled return visits with admission in patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

Unscheduled return visits (URVs) to the emergency department (ED) constitute a crucial indicator of patient care quality.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who visited the ED with abdominal pain and to identify the risk of URVs with admission (URVAs) from URVs without admission (URVNAs).

METHODS

This retrospective study included adult patients who visited the ED of Taipei Medical University Hospital because of abdominal pain and revisited in 72 h over a 5-year period (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to identify risk factors for URVAs and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of variables predicting URVAs and the optimal cut-off points for the variables. In addition, a classification and regression tree (CART)-based scoring system was used for predicting risk of URVA.

RESULTS

Of 702 eligible patients with URVs related to abdominal pain, 249 had URVAs (35.5%). In multivariable analysis, risk factors for URVAs during the index visit included execution of laboratory tests (yes vs no: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.32; 95% CI 2.99-6.23), older age (≥ 40 vs < 40 years: AOR, 2.10; 95% CI 1.10-1.34), Level 1-2 triage scores (Levels 1-2 vs Levels 3-5: AOR, 2.30; 95% CI 1.26-4.19), and use of ≥ 2 analgesics (≥ 2 vs < 2: AOR, 2.90; 95% CI 1.58-5.30). ROC curve analysis results revealed the combination of these 4 above variables resulted in acceptable performance (area under curve: 0.716). The above 4 variables were used in the CART model to evaluate URVA propensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Elder patients with abdominal pain who needed laboratory workup, had Level 1-2 triage scores, and received ≥ 2 doses of analgesics during their index visits to the ED had higher risk of URVAs.

Re-Assessment in Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis

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

[Upper abdominal pain: a frequent and multifaceted leading symptom in primary care internal medicine]

Upper gastrointestinal symptoms are among the most common reasons for medical consultation and represent a challenge for general practitioners in the outpatient care setting. History taking, symptom evaluation and physical examination are the crucial steps toward establishing an initial working diagnosis. The subsequent abdominal ultrasound and laboratory analyses are essential tools for the differential diagnosis.

Acute Abdominal Pain: Missed Diagnoses, Extra-Abdominal Conditions, and Outcomes

Abdominal pain (AP) is a common reason for presentation to an emergency department (ED). With this prospective, observational all-comer study, we aimed to answer three questions: Which diagnoses are most often missed? What is the incidence of extra-abdominal causes? What is the prognosis of abdominal pain in a tertiary urban European ED? Participants were systematically interviewed for the presence of 35 predefined symptoms. For all patients with abdominal pain, the index visit diagnoses were recorded. Related representation was defined as any representation, investigation, or surgery related to the index visit (open time frame). If a diagnosis changed between index visit and representation, it was classified as missed diagnosis. Among 3960 screened presentations, 480 (12.1%) were due to AP. Among 63 (13.1%) related representations, the most prevalent causes were cholelithiasis, gastroenteritis, and urinary retention. A missed diagnosis was attributed to 27 (5.6%) presentations. Extra-abdominal causes were identified in 162 (43%) presentations. Thirty-day mortality was comparable to that of all other ED patients (2.2% vs. 2.1%). Patients with abdominal pain had a low risk of representation, and the majority of representations due to missed diagnoses were of benign origin. The high incidence of extra-abdominal causes is noteworthy, as this may induce change to differential diagnosis of abdominal pain.

Approach to Acute Abdominal Pain: Practical Algorithms

Context:

Acute abdominal pain is one of the most common complaints of patients admitted to emergency units. This study aimed to propose a new approach to abdominal pain by designing a more structured diagnostic workup for physicians.

Evidence acquisition:

A comprehensive review of relevant articles and algorithms presented in books and websites was conducted. Approaches which were relevant to the study concept, were selected.

Results:

Seven algorithms were introduced with respect to the site of abdominal tenderness. The mainstay of these algorithms was differential diagnosis of the tenderness site.

Conclusion:

Based on the findings, the designed approach can prevent confusion among physicians and reduce requests for many unnecessary paraclinical tests, which delay the final diagnosis and impose unacceptable costs on patients and healthcare systems.

The Role of Ultrasonography in Patients Referring to the Emergency Department with Acute Abdominal Pain

CONTEXT

Acute abdominal pain is a common clinical problem in emergency and non-emergency cases accounting for 5 to 10% of all referrals to the emergency department. Studies have indicated that these widely differentiated diagnoses are common to these complaints. Considering the high prevalence of this complaint in the patients and the wide range of its differential diagnosis, this review study was designed and evaluated aiming at investigating the causes of acute abdominal pain with a focus on assessing the position of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in the emergency department.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This article was conducted as a narrative review of selected articles from 2005 through 2019. By comparing them, a comprehensive review of ultrasound role was conducted in patients with acute abdominal pain referring to the emergency department.

RESULTS

In this review study, we attempted to use the articles of the clinical approach, the required laboratory tests, the disadvantages and advantages of each imaging technique, the differential diagnosis for acute abdominal pain according to the location of the pain, and the position of ultrasound as a diagnostic aid tool. Eventually, the proposed protrusion will be considered in dealing with a patient with acute abdominal pain.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the wide range of causes providing multiple differential diagnosis, as well as the limited time of the health team in the emergency department for diagnostic and therapeutic measures, particularly in time-sensitive clinical conditions, ultrasound offered by emergency medicine specialists as a diagnostic aid is considered to improve the overall diagnosis and treatment of patients, thereby reducing complications.

Efficacy of scheduled return visits for emergency department patients with non-specific abdominal pain

INTRODUCTION

Many patients presenting with abdominal pain to emergency departments (EDs) are discharged without a definitive diagnosis. For these patients, often designated as having non-specific abdominal pain, re-evaluation is often advocated. We aimed to investigate how often re-evaluation changes the diagnosis and clinical management and discern factors that could help identify patients likely to benefit from re-evaluation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted in the Netherlands between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015 of patients asked to return to the ED after an initial presentation with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain. The primary outcome was a clinically relevant change in treatment (surgery, endoscopy during admission and/or hospitalisation) and diagnosis at ED re-evaluation within 30 hours.

RESULTS

During the 2-year study period, 358 ED patients with non-specific abdominal pain were scheduled for re-evaluation. Of these, 14% (11%-18%)) did not present for re-evaluation. Re-evaluation resulted in a clinically relevant change in diagnosis and treatment in, respectively, 21.3% (17%-29%)) and 22.3% (18%-27%)) of the subjects. Of the clinical, biochemical and radiological factors available at the index visit, C reactive protein (CRP) at the index visit predicted a change in treatment (CRP >27 mg/L likelihood ratio (LR)+ 1.69 (1.21-2.36)), while an increase in CRP of >25 mg/L between index and re-evaluation visit (LR+ 2.85 (1.88-4.32)) and the conduct of radiological studies at the re-evaluation visit were associated with changes in treatment (LR+ 3.05 (2.41-3.86)).

CONCLUSION

Re-evaluation within 30 hours for ED patients discharged with non-specific abdominal pain resulted in a clinically relevant change in diagnosis and therapy in almost one-quarter of patients. Elevated CRP at the index visit might assist in correctly identifying patients with a greater likelihood of needing treatment in follow-up, and a low threshold for radiological studies should be considered during re-evaluation.

Managing acute abdominal pain in pediatric patients: current perspectives

Acute abdominal pain in pediatric patients has been a challenge for providers because of the nonspecific nature of symptoms and difficulty in the assessment and physical examination in children. Although most children with acute abdominal pain have self-limited benign conditions, pain may be a manifestation of an urgent surgical or medical condition where the biggest challenge is making a timely diagnosis so that appropriate treatment can be initiated without any diagnostic delays that increase morbidity. This is weighed against the need to decrease radiation exposure and avoid unnecessary operations. Across all age groups, there are numerous conditions that present with abdominal pain ranging from a very simple viral illness to a life-threatening surgical condition. It is proposed that the history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging studies should initially be directed at differentiating surgical versus nonsurgical conditions both categorized as urgent versus nonurgent. The features of the history including patient’s age, physical examination focused toward serious conditions, and appropriate tests are highlighted in the context of making these differentiations. Initial testing and management is also discussed with an emphasis on making use of surgeon and radiologist consultation and the need for adequate follow-up and reevaluation of the patient.

Epidemiology and outcomes of acute abdominal pain in a large urban Emergency Department: retrospective analysis of 5,340 cases

BACKGROUND

Acute abdominal pain (AAP) accounts for 7-10% of all Emergency Department (ED) visits. Nevertheless, the epidemiology of AAP in the ED is scarcely known. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology and the outcomes of AAP in an adult population admitted to an urban ED.

METHODS

We made a retrospective analysis of all records of ED visits for AAP during the year 2014. All the patients with repeated ED admissions for AAP within 5 and 30 days were scrutinized. Five thousand three hundred and forty cases of AAP were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 49 years. The most frequent causes were nonspecific abdominal pain (NSAP) (31.46%), and renal colic (31.18%). Biliary colic/cholecystitis, and diverticulitis were more prevalent in patients aged >65 years (13.17% vs. 5.95%, and 7.28% vs. 2.47%, respectively). Appendicitis (i.e., 4.54% vs. 1.47%) and renal colic (34.48% vs. 20.84%) were more frequent in patients aged <65 years. NSAP was the most common cause in both age classes. Renal colic was the most frequent cause of ED admission in men, whereas NSAP was more prevalent in women. Urinary tract infection was higher in women. Overall, 885 patients (16.57%) were hospitalized. Four hundred and eighty-five patients had repeated ED visits throughout the study period. Among these, 302 patients (6.46%) were readmitted within 30 days, whereas 187 patients (3.82%) were readmitted within 5 days. Renal colic was the first cause for ED readmission, followed by NSAP. In 13 cases readmitted to the ED within 5 days, and in 16 cases readmitted between 5-30 days the diagnosis was changed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that AAP represented 5.76% of total ED visits. Two conditions (i.e., NSAP and renal colic) represented >60% of all causes. A large use of active clinical observations during ED stay (52% of our patients) lead to a negligible percentage of changing diagnosis at the second visit.

A report on an acute, in-hours, outpatient review clinic with ultrasonography facilities for the early evaluation of general surgical patients

Introduction In 2013 our hospital introduced an in-hours, consultant-led, outpatient acute surgical clinic (ASC) for emergency general surgical patients. In 2014 this clinic was equipped with a dedicated ultrasonography service. This prospective cohort study evaluated this service before and after the introduction of ultrasonography facilities. Methods Data were recorded prospectively for all patients attending the clinic during 2013 and 2014. The primary outcome was patient destination (whether there was follow-up/admission) after clinic attendance. Results The ASC reviewed patients with a wide age range and array of general surgical complaints. In 2013, 186 patients attended the ASC. After the introduction of the ultrasonography service in 2014, 304 patients attended. In 2014, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients admitted to hospital from the clinic (18.3% vs 8.9%, p=0.002). However, the proportion of patients discharged after ASC review remained comparable with 2013 (30.1% in 2013 vs 38.8% in 2014, p=0.051). The proportion of patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scans also fell (14.0% vs 4.9%, p<0.001). Conclusions The ASC assessed a wide array of general surgical complaints. Only a small proportion required hospital admission. The introduction of an ultrasonography service was associated with a further reduction in admission rates and computed tomography.

Accuracy of White Blood Cell Count and C-reactive Protein Levels Related to Duration of Symptoms in Patients Suspected of Acute Appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

Low levels of white blood cell (WBC) count and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been suggested to sufficiently rule out acute appendicitis. The diagnostic value of these tests is likely to depend on the duration of complaints. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of these inflammatory markers in relation to duration of symptoms in patients suspected of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Patients suspected of having acute appendicitis were retrospectively selected from five prospective cohorts of patients with acute abdominal pain presenting at the emergency department (ED) in two European countries. Only adult patients with clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis based on medical history, physical examination, and laboratory studies at the time of registration in the original cohorts were included in this analysis. WBC count and CRP level were determined in all patients and a final diagnosis was assigned to every patient by an expert panel based on all available clinical data and follow-up. For categories based on symptom duration, the diagnostic accuracy of single and combined cutoff values was determined, and negative predictive values (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated. Subgroup analyses for age (<40 years or ≥40 years) and sex were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,024 patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were included, of whom 580 (57%) were assigned a final diagnosis of appendicitis. No value of WBC count, CRP level, or their combination resulted in a NPV of more than 90%, regardless of the duration of symptoms. A WBC count of >20 × 10(9) /L in combination with symptoms for more than 48 hours was associated with a PPV of 100%. However, only eight of the 1,024 patients (1%) fulfilled these criteria, limiting the clinical applicability. No other cutoff level of WBC count, CRP level, or their combination resulted in a PPV of more than 80%, regardless of the duration of symptoms. In female patients, normal levels of CRP and WBC count more accurately excluded the diagnosis of appendicitis than normal levels did in male patients.

CONCLUSIONS

No WBC count or CRP level can safely and sufficiently confirm or exclude the suspected diagnosis of acute appendicitis in patients who present with abdominal pain of 5 days or less in duration.

C-reactive protein and white blood cell count as triage test between urgent and nonurgent conditions in 2961 patients with acute abdominal pain

The purpose of this article is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) count to discriminate between urgent and nonurgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department, thereby guiding the selection of patients for immediate diagnostic imaging.Data from 3 large published prospective cohort studies of patients with acute abdominal pain were combined in an individual patient data meta-analysis. CRP levels and WBC counts were compared between patients with urgent and nonurgent final diagnoses. Parameters of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for clinically applicable cutoff values of CRP levels and WBC count, and for combinations.A total of 2961 patients were included of which 1352 patients (45.6%) had an urgent final diagnosis. The median WBC count and CRP levels were significantly higher in the urgent group than in the nonurgent group (12.8 ×10/L; interquartile range [IQR] 9.9-16) versus (9.3 ×10/L; IQR 7.2-12.1) and (46  mg/L; IQR 12-100 versus 10  mg/L; IQR 7-26) (P < 0.001).The highest positive predictive value (PPV) (85.5%) and lowest false positives (14.5%) were reached when cutoff values of CRP level >50  mg/L and WBC count >15 ×10/L were combined; however, 85.3% of urgent cases was missed.A high CRP level (>50  mg/L) combined with a high WBC count (>15 ×10/L) leads to the highest PPV. However, this applies only to a small subgroup of patients (8.7%). Overall, CRP levels and WBC count are insufficient markers to be used as a triage test in the selection for diagnostic imaging, even with a longer duration of complaints (>48  hours).

Impact of clinical experience and diagnostic performance in patients with acute abdominal pain

Background. The aims were to evaluate the importance of the formal competence of the emergency department physician, the patient's time of arrival at the emergency department, and the use of a structured schedule for investigation of patients with acute abdominal pain. Methods. Patients attending the Mora Hospital with acute abdominal pain from 1997 to 2000 were registered prospectively according to a structured schedule. Registration included history, symptoms, signs, preliminary diagnosis, surgery and final diagnosis after at least one year.  Results. 3073 acute abdominal pain patients were included. The preliminary diagnosis, as compared with the final diagnosis, was correct in 54% (n = 1659). Previously, during 1996, a base-line registration of 790 patients had a 58% correct diagnoses  (n = 458). A majority of the patients (n = 2699; 88%) were managed by nonspecialists. The proportion of correct diagnoses was 54% (n = 759) for pre-registrar house officers and 55% (n = 443) for senior house officers. Diagnostic performance at the emergency department was independent of patient's time of arrival. Conclusions. A structured schedule for investigation did not improve the diagnostic precision at the emergency department in patients with acute abdominal pain. The diagnostic performance was independent of the formal competence of the physician and the patient's time of arrival.

Guideline for the diagnostic pathway in patients with acute abdominal pain

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic practice for acute abdominal pain at the Emergency Department varies widely and is mostly based on doctor's preferences. We aimed at developing an evidence-based guideline for the diagnostic pathway of patients with abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin.

METHODS

All available international literature on patients with acute abdominal pain was identified and graded according to their methodological quality by members of the multidisciplinary steering group. A guideline was synthetized, providing evidence-based recommendations together with considerations based on expertise of group members, patient preferences, costs, availability of facilities, and organizational aspects.

DEFINITION

Uniform terminology is needed in patients with acute abdominal pain to avoid difficulty in interpretation and ease comparison of findings between studies. We propose the use of the following definition for acute abdominal pain: pain of nontraumatic origin with a maximum duration of 5 days. Clinical diagnosis: Clinical evaluation is advised to differentiate between urgent and nonurgent causes. The diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment is insufficient to identify the correct diagnosis but can discriminate between urgent and nonurgent causes. Patients suspected of nonurgent diagnoses can safely be reevaluated the next day. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the differences in accuracy between residents and specialists. No conclusions can be drawn on the influence of a gynecological consultation. In patients suspected of an urgent condition, additional imaging is justified. CRP and WBC count alone are insufficient to discriminate urgent from nonurgent diagnoses. Diagnostic imaging: There is no place for conventional radiography in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain due to the lack of added value on top of clinical assessment. Computed tomography leads to the highest sensitivity and specificity in patients with acute abdominal pain. Positive predictive value of ultrasound is comparable with CT and therefore preferred as the first imaging modality due to the downsides of computed tomography; negative or inconclusive ultrasound is followed by CT. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the added value of a diagnostic laparoscopy in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain. Antibiotic treatment should be started within the first hour after recognition of sepsis. Administration of opioids (analgesics) decreases the intensity of the pain and does not affect the accuracy of physical examination.