Validation and comparison of two new scoring systems for the prediction of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

To validate the Atema and APSI scoring systems in the diagnosis of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis. To compare these scoring systems with computed tomography (CT) imaging alone to establish which method provides most accurate prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a sample of 160 patients that underwent appendicectomy and CT imaging for suspected appendicitis between 2018 and 2021 in a tertiary university teaching hospital. Each scoring system was applied to all patients and results analysed and compared with the effectiveness of CT imaging, RESULTS: 32.5% (n = 52) were found to have complicated appendicitis and 67.5% (n = 108) uncomplicated appendicitis. Application of the Atema score to our cohort of patients resulted in a sensitivity 76.9% [CI (64.2, 87.5), specificity 58.7% [CI (48.9, 68.1)], PPV 47.1% [CI (40.5, 53.8) and NPV 84.2% [CI (76.0, 89.9)]. By comparison, the APSI yielded a sensitivity 50.9% [CI (36.6, 65.4)], specificity 76.1% [CI (67.0, 87.8)], PPV 50% [CI (39.2, 60.6)] and NPV 76% [CI (71.1, 81.7)]. Radiology prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis with CT imaging showed sensitivity 46% [CI (32.2, 60.5)], specificity 79%; [CI (69.8, 86)], PPV 51% [CI (39.6, 62.5)] and NPV 75% [CI (69.8, 79.9)].

CONCLUSION

By comparing the APSI and Atema et al. scoring systems with CT reporting in our hospital, it appears that the Atema may confer some benefit in stratifying patient risk of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Further larger scale prospective studies are required.

Methods of conservative antibiotic treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses and a recent guideline acknowledge that conservative management of uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics can be successful for patients who wish to avoid surgery. However, guidance as to specific management does not exist.

METHODS

PUBMED and EMBASE search of trials describing methods of conservative treatment was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies involving 2,944 antibiotic-treated participants were identified. The greatest experience with conservative treatment is in persons 5 to 50 years of age. In most trials, imaging was used to confirm localized appendicitis without evidence of abscess, phlegmon, or tumor. Antibiotics regimens were generally consistent with intra-abdominal infection treatment guidelines and used for a total of 7 to 10 days. Approaches ranged from 3-day hospitalization on parenteral agents to same-day hospital or ED discharge of stable patients with outpatient oral antibiotics. Minimum time allowed before response was evaluated varied from 8 to 72 hours. Although pain was a common criterion for nonresponse and appendectomy, analgesic regimens were poorly described. Trials differed in use of other response indicators, that is, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and reimaging. Diet ranged from restriction for 48 hours to as tolerated. Initial response rates were generally greater than 90% and most participants improved by 24 to 48 hours, with no related severe sepsis or deaths. In most studies, appendectomy was recommended for recurrence; however, in several, patients had antibiotic retreatment with success.

CONCLUSION

While further investigation of conservative treatment is ongoing, patients considering this approach should be advised and managed according to study methods and related guidelines to promote informed shared decision-making and optimize their chance of similar outcomes as described in published trials. Future studies that address biases associated with enrollment and response evaluation, employ best-practice pain control and antibiotic selection, better define cancer risk, and explore longer time thresholds for response, minimized diet restriction and hospital stays, and antibiotic re-treatment will further our understanding of the potential effectiveness of conservative management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level II.