Antibiotics as first-line alternative to appendicectomy in adult appendicitis: 90-day follow-up from a prospective, multicentre cohort study

Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long-term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow-up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low-certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I2 = 69%; 7 studies, 2471 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes At one year, 30.7% (95% CI 24.0 to 37.8; I2 = 80%; 9 studies, 1396 participants) of participants in the antibiotic group required appendectomy or, alternatively, more than two-thirds of antibiotic-treated participants avoided surgery in the first year, but the evidence is very uncertain. Regarding complications, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in episodes of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea due to very low-certainty evidence (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.89; 1 study, 1332 participants). There may be a clinically significant reduction in wound infections with antibiotics (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.68; I2 = 16%; 9 studies, 2606 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether antibiotics affect the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess or collection (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.07; I2 = 19%; 6 studies, 1831 participants), or reoperation (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.16; 1 study, 492 participants) due to very low-certainty evidence, mainly due to rare events causing imprecision and risk of bias. It is uncertain if antibiotics prolonged length of hospital stay by half a day due to the very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01; I2 = 97%; 11 studies, 3192 participants). The incidence of malignancy was 0.3% (95% CI 0 to 1.5; 5 studies, 403 participants) in the antibiotic group although follow-up was variable. Antibiotics probably increased the number of negative appendectomies at surgery (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.49; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 707 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics may be associated with higher rates of unsuccessful treatment for 76 per 1000 people, although differences may not be clinically significant. It is uncertain if antibiotics increase length of hospital stay by half a day. Antibiotics may reduce wound infections. A third of the participants initially treated with antibiotics required subsequent appendectomy or two-thirds avoided surgery within one year, but the evidence is very uncertain. There were too few data from the included studies to comment on major complications.

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.

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.

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.

Two-year outcomes of conservatively managed appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic-a multicentre cohort study

PURPOSE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the new RCSEng guidelines resulted in appendicitis being more commonly managed conservatively to avoid aerosol-generating procedures. This resulted in shorter hospital stays without increased short-term complications. The 2-year outcomes of this change, specifically recurrence and re-admission rates remain unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational study including all adult patients treated as appendicitis after the implementation of the new surgical guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcomes included initial management failure, re-admission rate, appendicitis recurrence, and interval appendicectomy. A historical cohort prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was used for comparison. Patients were followed up for 2-years post index admission. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using Fisher's exact test and Student's T or Mann-Whitney U tests as appropriate.

RESULTS

Sixty-three and 79 patients with appendicitis were included from four NHS trusts, before (A) and after (B) the new intercollegiate guidelines respectively. Operative management was used less frequently in cohort B (28/79 vs 52/63; p<0.001). More patients re-presented in cohort B (14/79 vs 3/63; p=0.020), but not when comparing only those managed conservatively (2/11 vs 13/52; p=1.000). A similar trend was observed for appendicitis recurrence although without statistical significance (2/63 vs 9/79; p=0.112); with loss of trend when comparing those managed conservatively-only (2/11 vs 9/52; p=1.000). Among all patients, four (2.8%) were found to have underlying neoplasia of which three were initially managed conservatively (3/63; 4.8%).

CONCLUSION

Conservative management of appendicitis has previously been shown to have short-term benefits in expedited hospital discharge without early complications. The present study shows it has a higher readmission and appendicitis recurrence rates. The risks of this alongside missed/delayed management of neoplasia needs to be considered alongside the benefits including avoidance of aerosol-generating general anaesthesia and laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic or similar future health crises. Small case numbers limit analysis.

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.

Management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic. Single center data from a tertiary care hospital in Germany

Objectives

The unexpected global overload of the health system during COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes in management of acute appendicitis worldwide. Whereas conservative treatment was widely recommended, the appendicectomy remained standard therapy in Germany. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment routine for acute appendicitis at University Hospital of Magdeburg.

Methods

Adult patients with clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute appendicitis were included in the single center retrospective study. Data was collected to patient demographics, treatment modality and outcomes including morbidity and length of stay. The patient data related to COVID-19 period from March 22, 2020 to December 31, 2021 (649 days) were compared to the Non-COVID-19 period from June 12, 2018 to March 21, 2020 (649 days). Subgroup analysis related to conservative or surgical treatment has been performed.

Results

A total of 385 patients was included in the study, 203 (52.73 %) during Non-COVID-19 period and 182 (47.27 %) during COVID-19 period. Mean age of entire collective was 43.28 years, containing 43.9 % female patients (p=0.095). Conservative treatment was accomplished in 49 patients (12.7 % of entire collective), increasing from 9.9 % to 15.9 % during COVID-19 period (p=0.074). Laparoscopic appendicectomy was performed in 99.3 % (n=152) of operated patients during COVID-19 period (p=0.013), followed by less postoperative complications compared to reference period (23.5 % vs. 13.1 %, p=0.015). The initiation of antibiotic therapy after the diagnosis increased from 37.9 % to 53.3 % (p=0.002) during COVID-19 period regardless the following treatment modality. Antibiotic treatment showed shorter duration during pandemic period (5.57 days vs. 3.16 days, p<0.001) and it was given longer in the conservative treatment group (5.63 days vs. 4.26 days, p=0.02). The overall length of stay was shorter during COVID-19 period (4.67 days vs. 4.12 days, p=0.052) and in the conservative treatment group (3.08 days vs. 4.47 days, p<0.001). However, the overall morbidity was lower during the COVID-19 period than before (17.2 % vs. 7.7 %, p=0.005) and for conservative therapy compared to appendicectomy (2 % vs. 14.3 %, p=0.016). There was no mortality documented.

Conclusions

According to our findings the COVID-19 pandemic had a relevant impact on treatment of acute appendicitis, but it was possible to maintain the traditional diagnostic and treatment pathway. Although laparoscopic appendicectomy remains a recommended procedure, the conservative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis with excellent short-term outcome can be a safe alternative to surgery during potential new wave of COVID-19 pandemic and in the daily routine.

IL-5 Serum and Appendicular Lavage Fluid Concentrations Correlate with Eosinophilic Infiltration in the Appendicular Wall Supporting a Role for a Hypersensitivity Type I Reaction in Acute Appendicitis

Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency, but its aetiology is not fully understood. We and others have proposed that allergic responses play significant roles in its pathophysiology. Eosinophils and Interleukin (IL)-5 are involved in a hypersensitivity type I reaction. Eosinophil infiltration is common in the allergic target organ and is dependent on IL-5. In the presence of an allergic component, it is expected that the eosinophil count and IL-5 local and systemic concentrations become elevated. To address this hypothesis, we designed a prospective study that included 65 patients with acute appendicitis (grouped as acute phlegmonous or gangrenous according to the histological definition) and 18 patients with the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis, but with normal histological findings (control group) were enrolled. Eosinophil blood counts and appendicular wall eosinophil infiltration were determined. IL-5 levels in blood and appendicular lavage fluid were evaluated. Appendicular lavage fluid was collected by a new methodology developed and standardized by our group. Appendicular wall eosinophil infiltration was higher in acute phlegmonous appendicitis than in gangrenous appendicitis (p = 0.000). IL-5 blood levels were similar in both pathologic and control groups (p > 0.05). In the appendicular lavage fluid, the higher levels of IL-5 were observed in the phlegmonous appendicitis group (p = 0.056). We found a positive correlation between the appendicular wall eosinophilic infiltration and the IL-5 concentrations, in both the blood and the appendicular lavage fluid, supporting the IL-5 reliance in eosinophil local infiltration. We observed the highest presence of eosinophils at phlegmonous appendicitis walls. In conclusion, the present data are compatible with a hypersensitivity type I allergic reaction in the target organ, the appendix, during the phlegmonous phase of appendicitis.

Moving to Medical Treatment for COVID-19 Influence on Pediatric Appendicitis: A Meta-Analysis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is cited as the leading cause of surgical acute abdomen in pediatrics and the most frequent urgent surgical pathology worldwide. For a long time, surgical appendectomy has been effectively used as the first-line treatment for AA. Other conservative management practices, such as the use of antibiotics, have been applied in the treatment of appendicitis. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the surgical treatment strategies of AA in pediatrics, with many pediatric surgeons having to shift from upfront surgical appendectomy to conservative management involving the use of antibiotics as a treatment strategy. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes between appendectomy and conservative therapy in the management of AA during COVID-19 in pediatrics. Twenty-one articles fully met the inclusion criteria. Articles that were published more than five years ago were excluded from the analysis. Also, articles that included studies on the adult population were excluded. Results from various retrospective studies, prospective clinical controlled trials, correlational studies, and randomized clinical trials were analyzed. This study reveals that the use of antibiotics has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis. However, antibiotics have been shown to have some complications. Despite this being the case, the studies identified the potential of using antibiotics as a definitive treatment of uncomplicated AA in pediatrics. Further studies are required to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and recurrence of AA of this alternative treatment method.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with presumed diagnosis of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AAp) is the most frequent cause of acute abdominal pain, and appendectomy is the most frequent emergency procedure that is performed worldwide. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused delays in managing diseases requiring emergency approaches such as AAp and trauma.

AIM

To compare the demographic, clinical, and histopathological outcomes of patients with AAp who underwent appendectomy during pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods.

METHODS

The demographic, clinical, biochemical, and histopathological parameters were evaluated and compared in patients who underwent appendectomy with the presumed diagnosis of AAp in the pre-COVID-19 (October 2018-March 2020) and COVID-19 (March 2020-July 2021) periods.

RESULTS

Admissions to our tertiary care hospital for AAp increased 44.8% in the COVID-19 period. Pre-COVID-19 (n = 154) and COVID-19 (n = 223) periods were compared for various parameters, and we found that there were statistically significant differences in terms of variables such as procedures performed on the weekdays or weekends [odds ratio (OR): 1.76; P = 0.018], presence of AAp findings on ultrasonography (OR: 15.4; P < 0.001), confirmation of AAp in the histopathologic analysis (OR: 2.6; P = 0.003), determination of perforation in the appendectomy specimen (OR: 2.2; P = 0.004), the diameter of the appendix (P < 0.001), and hospital stay (P = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of interval between the initiation of symptoms and admission to the hospital between the pre-COVID-19 (median: 24 h; interquartile range: 34) and COVID-19 (median: 36 h; interquartile range: 60) periods (P = 0.348). The interval between the initiation of symptoms until the hospital admission was significantly longer in patients with perforated AAp regardless of the COVID-19 or pre-COVID-19 status (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that in the COVID-19 period, the ultrasonographic determination rate of AAp, perforation rate of AAp, and duration of hospital stay increased. On the other hand, negative appendectomy rate decreased. There was no statistically significant delay in hospital admissions that would delay the diagnosis of AAp in the COVID-19 period.

Identifying Recurrence Risk Factors in CT-Confirmed Acute Appendicitis in Adults Managed Non-operatively During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background/Objective: Acute appendicitis (AA) is predominantly managed with appendectomy, but can be treated non-operatively, leading to a high risk of recurrence. Non-operative management has been more common since the COVID-19 pandemic affected the feasibility of performing surgery. This case-control study analyzed non-operatively managed patients in order to identify clinical and radiological factors associated with recurrence risk. 

Methods: Over 12 months, 48 adults with CT-proven AA managed non-operatively were identified, and followed up for at least six further months to assess them for recurrence (readmission to hospital more than 14 days after discharge and after symptom resolution, requiring treatment for appendicitis). Clinical and CT data were collected and a Cox regression survival analysis was performed to produce hazards ratios (HRs).

Results: Of the 48 patients, 12 (25%) experienced a recurrence up until the end of the follow-up period, eight of whom were then treated operatively, and four treated non-operatively. On the univariate analysis, greater recurrence risk was observed in patients with diabetes mellitus, higher heart rate (on admission and maximum value during admission), lower white cell count and neutrophils and appendiceal wall thinning on CT. On the multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus (HR=7.72, p=0.021) and higher heart rate (HR=1.08, p=0.018) were associated with statistically significant greater recurrence risk.

Conclusions: Diabetes mellitus and higher heart rate on admission are associated with greater recurrence risk of AA managed non-operatively. No CT findings were associated with statistically significant greater risk. Clinicians should, therefore, consider DM and heart rate when making decisions on appendicitis management, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic but also beyond it.

Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Appendectomy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated acute appendicitis despite several randomized clinical trials pointing to the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of this disease. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials may contribute to the body of evidence and help surgeons select which patients may benefit from surgical and nonsurgical treatment.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of nonoperative management vs appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

Data Sources

A systematic review was conducted using indexed sources (Embase and PubMed) to search for published randomized clinical trials in English comparing nonoperative management with appendectomy in adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. To increase sensitivity, no limits were set for outcomes reported, sex, or year of publication. All nonrandomized or quasi-randomized trials were excluded, and validated primers were used.

Study Selection

Among 1504 studies imported for screening, 805 were duplicates, and 595 were excluded for irrelevancy. A further 96 were excluded after full-text review, mainly owing to wrong study design or inclusion of pediatric populations. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the meta-analysis.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Meta-extraction was conducted with independent extraction by multiple reviewers using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled by a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Treatment success and major adverse effects at 30 days' follow-up.

Results

The main outcome (treatment success proportion at 30 days of follow-up) was not significantly different in the operative and nonoperative management cohorts (risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66-1.11). Likewise, the percentage of major adverse effects was similar in both cohorts (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.79). However, in the nonoperative management group, length of stay was significantly longer (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70), and a median cumulative incidence of 18% of recurrent appendicitis was observed.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results point to the general safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, this strategy may be associated with an increase in duration of hospital stay and a higher rate of recurrent appendicitis. This meta-analysis may help inform decision-making in nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Impact of the first wave of COVID-19 on outcomes following emergency admissions for common acute surgical conditions: analysis of a national database in England

Background

This study assessed the impact of the first COVID-19 wave in England on outcomes for acute appendicitis, gallstone disease, intestinal obstruction, diverticular disease, and abdominal wall hernia.

Methods

Emergency surgical admissions for patients aged 18 years and older to 124 NHS Trust hospitals between January and June in 2019 and 2020 were extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics. The risk of 90-day mortality after admission during weeks 11–19 in 2020 (national lockdown) and 2019 (pre-COVID-19) was estimated using multilevel logistic regression with case-mix adjustment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.

Results

There were 12 231 emergency admissions and 564 deaths within 90 days during weeks 11–19 in 2020, compared with 18 428 admissions and 542 deaths in the same interval in 2019. Overall, 90-day mortality was higher in 2020 versus 2019, with an adjusted OR of 1.95 (95 per cent c.i. 0.78 to 4.89) for appendicitis, 2.66 (1.81 to 3.92) for gallstone disease, 1.99 (1.44 to 2.74) for diverticular disease, 1.70 (1.13 to 2.55) for hernia, and 1.22 (1.01 to 1.47) for intestinal obstruction. After emergency surgery, 90-day mortality was higher in 2020 versus 2019 for gallstone disease (OR 3.37, 1.26 to 9.02), diverticular disease (OR 2.35, 1.16 to 4.73), and hernia (OR 2.34, 1.23 to 4.45). For intestinal obstruction, the corresponding OR was 0.91 (0.59 to 1.41). For admissions not leading to emergency surgery, mortality was higher in 2020 versus 2019 for gallstone disease (OR 2.55, 1.67 to 3.88), diverticular disease (1.90, 1.32 to 2.73), and intestinal obstruction (OR 1.30, 1.06 to 1.60).

Conclusion

Emergency admission was reduced during the first lockdown in England and this was associated with higher 90-day mortality.

Local Instrumental Variable Methods to Address Confounding and Heterogeneity when Using Electronic Health Records: An Application to Emergency Surgery

Background

Electronic health records (EHRs) offer opportunities for comparative effectiveness research to inform decision making. However, to provide useful evidence, these studies must address confounding and treatment effect heterogeneity according to unmeasured prognostic factors. Local instrumental variable (LIV) methods can help studies address these challenges, but have yet to be applied to EHR data. This article critically examines a LIV approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of emergency surgery (ES) for common acute conditions from EHRs.

Methods

This article uses hospital episodes statistics (HES) data for emergency hospital admissions with acute appendicitis, diverticular disease, and abdominal wall hernia to 175 acute hospitals in England from 2010 to 2019. For each emergency admission, the instrumental variable for ES receipt was each hospital’s ES rate in the year preceding the emergency admission. The LIV approach provided individual-level estimates of the incremental quality-adjusted life-years, costs and net monetary benefit of ES, which were aggregated to the overall population and subpopulations of interest, and contrasted with those from traditional IV and risk-adjustment approaches.

Results

The study included 268,144 (appendicitis), 138,869 (diverticular disease), and 106,432 (hernia) patients. The instrument was found to be strong and to minimize covariate imbalance. For diverticular disease, the results differed by method; although the traditional approaches reported that, overall, ES was not cost-effective, the LIV approach reported that ES was cost-effective but with wide statistical uncertainty. For all 3 conditions, the LIV approach found heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness estimates across population subgroups: in particular, ES was not cost-effective for patients with severe levels of frailty.

Conclusions

EHRs can be combined with LIV methods to provide evidence on the cost-effectiveness of routinely provided interventions, while fully recognizing heterogeneity.

Highlights

Effectiveness of emergency surgery for five common acute conditions: an instrumental variable analysis of a national routine database

The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies for emergency admissions with acute appendicitis, gallstone disease, diverticular disease, abdominal wall hernia or intestinal obstruction is unknown. Data on emergency admissions for adult patients from 2010 to 2019 at 175 acute National Health Service hospitals in England were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Cohort sizes were: 268,144 (appendicitis); 240,977 (gallstone disease); 138,869 (diverticular disease); 106,432 (hernia); and 133,073 (intestinal obstruction). The primary outcome was number of days alive and out of hospital at 90 days. The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies was estimated using an instrumental variable design and is reported for the cohort and pre-specified sub-groups (age, sex, number of comorbidities and frailty level). Average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for all five cohorts were similar, with the following mean differences (95%CI) for emergency surgery minus non-emergency surgery after adjusting for confounding: -0.73 days (-2.10-0.64) for appendicitis; 0.60 (-0.10-1.30) for gallstone disease; -2.66 (-15.7-10.4) for diverticular disease; -0.07 (-2.40-2.25) for hernia; and 3.32 (-3.13-9.76) for intestinal obstruction. For patients with 'severe frailty', mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital for emergency surgery were lower than for non-emergency surgery strategies: -21.0 (-27.4 to -14.6) for appendicitis; -5.72 (-11.3 to -0.2) for gallstone disease, -38.9 (-63.3 to -14.6) for diverticular disease; -19.5 (-26.6 to -12.3) for hernia; and - 34.5 (-46.7 to -22.4) for intestinal obstruction. For patients without frailty, the mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital were: -0.18 (-1.56-1.20) for appendicitis; 0.93 (0.48-1.39) for gallstone disease; 5.35 (-2.56-13.28) for diverticular disease; 2.26 (0.37-4.15) for hernia; and 18.2 (14.8-22.47) for intestinal obstruction. Emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies led to similar average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for five acute conditions. The comparative effectiveness of emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies for these conditions may be modified by patient factors.

A review of the function and evolution of the cecal appendix

Since its initial discovery in the 1500s, the cecal appendix has been an anatomical structure of great intrigue, notorious for its inconvenient tendency to become inflamed and often require surgical intervention. Appendicitis is one of the most common indications for emergency abdominal surgery, costing healthcare systems billions of dollars globally and causing tens of thousands of deaths annually. Yet, recent studies have indicated that the appendix may serve important protective functions in fortifying the body's immune response against invading pathogens and re-inoculating the gut with commensal bacteria after periods of gastrointestinal illness. While the cecal appendix was once believed to be a synapomorphy of hominoids (humans and other great apes), recent studies suggested that it is a recurrent trait found in several other species of primates, rodents, lagomorphs, marsupials, and monotremes. Mapping appendiceal and other gastrointestinal traits across a mammalian consensus phylogeny revealed that the cecal appendix has evolved independently numerous times throughout mammalian evolution, significantly more than would be expected due to chance alone, suggesting that the appendix is adaptively advantageous. However, attempts to identify an overarching ecological, behavioral, dietary, or environmental factor driving some species to evolve an appendix have been largely unsuccessful, indicating that the cecal appendix has a complex and diverse evolutionary history. This review discusses the current understanding of the pathophysiology, evolution, and possible functions of the appendix, both within humans and broadly across the class Mammalia.

Variation in the rates of emergency surgery amongst emergency admissions to hospital for common acute conditions

Background

This paper assesses variation in rates of emergency surgery (ES) amongst emergency admissions to hospital in patients with acute appendicitis, cholelithiasis, diverticular disease, abdominal wall hernia, and intestinal obstruction.

Methods

Records of emergency admissions between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2019 for the five conditions were extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics for 136 acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. Patients who had ES were identified using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) procedure codes, selected by consensus of a clinical panel. The differences in ES rates according to patient characteristics, and unexplained variations across NHS trusts were estimated by multilevel logistic regression, adjusting for year of emergency admission, age, sex, ethnicity, diagnostic subcategories, index of multiple deprivation, number of co-morbidities, and frailty.

Results

The cohort sizes ranged from 107 325 (hernia) to 268 253 (appendicitis) patients, and the proportion of patients who received ES from 11.0 per cent (diverticular disease) to 92.3 per cent (appendicitis). Older patients were generally less likely to receive ES, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of ES for those aged 75–79 versus those aged 45–49 years: 0.34 (appendicitis), 0.49 (cholelithiasis), 0.87 (hernia), and 0.91 (intestinal obstruction). Patients with diverticular disease aged 75–79 were more likely to receive ES than those aged 45–49 (OR 1.40). Variation in ES rates across NHS trusts remained after case mix adjustment and was greatest for cholelithiasis (trust median 18 per cent, 10th to 90th centile 7–35 per cent).

Conclusion

For patients presenting as emergency hospital admissions with common acute conditions, variation in ES rates between NHS trusts remained after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Age was strongly associated with the likelihood of ES receipt for some procedures.