Optimising the antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial (APPAC II trial)

Three-Year Outcomes of Oral Antibiotics vs Intravenous and Oral Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Secondary Analysis of the APPAC II Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Current short-term evidence has shown that uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be treated successfully with oral antibiotics alone, but longer-term results are lacking.

Objective

To assess the treatment effectiveness of oral antibiotic monotherapy compared with combined intravenous (IV) and oral antibiotics in computed tomography-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis at a longer-term follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary analysis of a predefined year 3 follow-up of the Appendicitis Acuta II (APPAC II) noninferiority, multicenter randomized clinical trial compared oral moxifloxacin with combined IV ertapenem plus oral levofloxacin and metronidazole for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The trial was conducted at 9 university and central hospitals in Finland from April 2017 to November 2018, with the last follow-up in November 2022. Participants included patients aged 18 to 60 years, who were randomized to receive either oral antibiotics monotherapy (n = 301) or combined IV and oral antibiotics (n = 298).

Interventions

Antibiotics monotherapy consisted of oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg/d, for 7 days. Combined IV and oral antibiotics consisted of IV ertapenem sodium, 1 g/d, for 2 days plus oral levofloxacin, 500 mg/d, and metronidazole, 500 mg 3 times/d, for 5 days.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was treatment success, defined as the resolution of acute appendicitis and discharge from hospital without the need for surgical intervention and no appendicitis recurrence at the year 3 follow-up evaluated using a noninferiority design. The secondary end points included late (after 1 year) appendicitis recurrence as well as treatment-related adverse events, quality of life, length of hospital stay, and length of sick leave, which were evaluated using a superiority design.

Results

After exclusions, 599 patients (mean [SD] age, 36 [12] years; 336 males [56.1%]) were randomized; after withdrawal and loss to follow-up, 582 patients (99.8%) were available for the year 3 follow-up. The treatment success at year 3 was 63.4% (1-sided 95% CI, 58.8% to ∞) in the oral antibiotic monotherapy group and 65.2% (1-sided 95% CI, 60.5% to ∞) in the combined IV and oral antibiotics group. The difference in treatment success rate between the groups at year 3 was -1.8 percentage points (1-sided 95% CI, -8.3 percentage points to ∞; P = .14 for noninferiority), with the CI limit exceeding the noninferiority margin. There were no significant differences between groups in treatment-related adverse events, quality of life, length of hospital stay, or length of sick leave.

Conclusions and Relevance

This secondary analysis of the APPAC II trial found a slightly higher appendectomy rate in patients who received oral antibiotic monotherapy; however, noninferiority of oral antibiotic monotherapy compared with combined IV and oral antibiotics could not be demonstrated. The results encourage future studies to assess oral antibiotic monotherapy as a viable treatment alternative for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03236961.

Is non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis possible: A narrative review

Introduction

Acute appendicitis (AA) represents the most frequent surgical emergency. Perforation was long considered the ultimate outcome of AA, prompting appendectomy; which remains the standard treatment. New data have clarified the role of the appendix, justifying conservative treatment. This narrative review aims to summarize the evidence regarding the non-operative treatment (NOT) of AA in adults.

Methods

The literature search was performed via the PubMed Medline database. Our criteria-based selection resulted in a total of 48 articles for review.

Results

Recent trials and meta-analyses have assessed NOT, which support primary antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated AA. Although it has a significant recurrence and failure rate, NOT does not appear to increase the risk of appendicular perforation. Moreover, NOT compared with appendectomy, seems to be associated with less morbidity, lower cost of care and preserved quality of life.

Conclusion

First-line NOT seems to be a reasonable approach for the treatment of uncomplicated CT-confirmed AA. Careful patient screening would definitely enhance the success rate.

Incidence of occult appendiceal neoplasm in patients over 40 years with acute appendicitis: A single-institution review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of occult appendiceal neoplasm in patients aged 40 years and over who underwent appendicectomy for appendicitis.

METHODS

The clinical coding electronic database was used to identify patients aged 40 years and over who were diagnosed with appendicitis from September 2010 to September 2022. Patients were included if they were managed operatively.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Modified Monash category 3 (large rural town).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 40 years and over undergoing appendicectomy for appendicitis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of appendiceal neoplasm within appendicectomy specimen.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients aged 40 years and over underwent appendicectomy, with a median age of 53 years (range 40-95). Nineteen patients (7%) were found to have a primary neoplastic lesion within the appendix: seven neuroendocrine neoplasms (37%), six sessile serrated lesions (32%), two colonic-type adenocarcinoma (11%), two goblet cell adenocarcinoma (11%) and two appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (11%). Additionally, one patient had a metastatic adenocarcinoma of pancreaticobiliary aetiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Occult appendiceal neoplasm was higher than reported in the literature in our cohort. This would support appendicectomy as the treatment of choice for patients aged 40 years and over with acute appendicitis and caution against nonoperative management in this demographic.

Are Antibiotics the New Appendectomy?

Prior to the development of laparoscopic procedures, open appendectomy was the standard of care for the majority of appendicitis cases. Recently, studies have debated using antibiotics as a first-line treatment in uncomplicated appendicitis cases. The definition of uncomplicated appendicitis is not always clear-cut; however, with the large-scale accessibility of radiologic techniques, it is becoming increasingly easier to classify patient groups. As suggested by clinical and radiological patient data, this has raised the speculation of considering antibiotic therapy as the sole treatment modality in uncomplicated appendicitis cases. We aim to compare the options of surgery and antibiotics only in terms of efficacy, complications, and financial cost. A range of databases and search strategies were adopted, and various databases were used, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and JAMA. Collectively, 30 studies were reviewed, but only 18 were included. Efficacy rates were higher in the appendectomy group. Nevertheless, the antibiotics-only group maintained an efficacy rate greater than 70% at one-year follow-up. Risk factors that decreased the efficacy in medical management included the presence of appendicolith, neoplasm, appendiceal dilatation, peri-appendiceal fluid collection, higher mean temperature, CRP, and bilirubin. Complications were more frequent and significant in the surgery group. These included complications related to anaesthesia, surgical site infections, damage to nearby structures, and pulmonary embolism. Despite several years of follow-up and disease recurrences, higher financial costs were observed in surgically treated patients compared to the antibiotics-only group. Given the high success rates post-appendectomy for acute appendicitis over the decades, the efficacy of conservatively treated acute appendicitis raises a strong argument when choosing one of the two options. The efficacy remained consistently higher across the literature in the surgery group than in the antibiotics-only group. However, it is still arguable that antibiotics may be a preferable option given an efficacy rate of more than 70% at one year and overall higher complications associated with surgery. The argument of missing a neoplasm by avoiding surgery is valid. However, most are carcinoid neuroendocrine neoplasms with a low probability of metastasis (<5%) and are usually considered benign. Given the current practice focused on conservative and minimally invasive treatments and recently the COVID-19 pandemic, with its restrictions and lessons learnt, antibiotics may be the future standard for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Lastly, we noticed higher efficacy rates in articles published recently than those published at least five to ten years earlier. Antibiotics-only therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis is cost-effective with fewer complications than surgery. However, appendectomies have higher efficacy. Thus, surgical treatment prevails as the standard of care. Future literature should yield larger sample sizes and explore the numbers of emergency appendectomies mandated following antibiotics-only therapy.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the electronic database including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang. The primary outcomes included complication-free treatment success at 1 year, complications, surgical complications, and the complicated appendicitis rates. Secondary outcomes included negative appendicitis, length of hospital stay, the quality of life at 1 month, and the impact of an appendicolith on antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled studies were included. Compared with surgery group, the antibiotic group decreased the complication-free treatment success at 1 year (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; z = 3.65; p = 0.000). Statistically significance was existed between antibiotic group and surgical group with both surgical types(open and laparoscopic) (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.31-0.58; z = 5.36; p = 0.000), while no between the antibiotic treatment and laparoscopic surgery (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41-1.24; z = 1.19; p = 0.236). There was no statistically significant differences between two groups of surgical complications (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.70-2.73; z = 0.93; p = 0.353), the complicated appendicitis rate (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.36-1.42; z = 0.96; p = 0.338), negative appendectomy rate (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.69-1.79; z = 0.43; p = 0.670), duration of hospital stay (SMD 0.08; 95%CI -0.11-0.27; z = 0.80; p = 0.422), and quality of life at 1 month (SMD 0.09; 95%CI -0.03-0.20; z = 1.53; p = 0.127). However, in the antibiotic treatment group, appendicolith rates were statistically higher in those whose symptoms did not improve (RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.28-6.74; z = 2.55; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the cure rate of antibiotics is lower than surgery, antibiotic treatment is still a reasonable option for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis who do not want surgery without having to worry about complications or complicating the original illness.

Outcomes of Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Acute Appendicitis in Older Adults in the US

Importance

Although the incidence of acute appendicitis among adults 65 years and older is high, these patients are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials comparing nonoperative vs operative management of appendicitis; it is unclear whether current trial data can be used to guide treatment in older adults.

Objective

To compare outcomes following nonoperative vs operative management of appendicitis in older adults and assess whether they differ from results in younger patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used US hospital admissions data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2017. Of 723 889 adult patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, 474 845 with known procedure date who survived 24 hours postprocedure and did not have inflammatory bowel disease were included (43 846 who were treated nonoperatively and 430 999 with appendectomy) were included. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to April 2022.

Exposures

Nonoperative vs operative management.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was incidence of posttreatment complications. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay, and inpatient costs. Differences were estimated using inverse probability weighting of the propensity score with sensitivity analysis to quantify effects of unmeasured confounding.

Results

The median (IQR) age in the overall cohort was 39 (27-54) years, and 29 948 participants (51.3%) were female. In patients 65 years and older, nonoperative management was associated with a 3.72% decrease in risk of complications (95% CI, 2.99-4.46) and a 1.82% increase in mortality (95% CI, 1.49-2.15) along with increased length of hospitalization and costs. Outcomes in patients younger than 65 years were significantly different than in older adults, with only minor differences between nonoperative and operative management with respect to morbidity and mortality, and smaller differences in length of hospitalization and costs. Morbidity and mortality results were somewhat sensitive to bias from unmeasured confounding.

Conclusions and Relevance

Nonoperative management was associated with reduced complications in older but not younger patients; however, operative management was associated with reduced mortality, hospital length of stay, and overall costs across all age groups. The different outcomes of nonoperative vs operative management of appendicitis in older and younger adults highlights the need for a randomized clinical trial to determine the best approach for managing appendicitis in older patients.

The role of CT in decision for acute appendicitis treatment

PURPOSE Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of the acute abdomen requiring surgery. Although standard treatment has been surgery, it has been seen in recent years that treatment is possible with antibiotics and non-operative observation. In this study, our aim is to determine whether the CT findings in patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis can be used for directing treatment. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted on 138 patients with acute appendicitis who underwent CT between 2015 - 2019. In this study, medical treatment group (n = 60) versus surgical treatment group (n = 78) and successful antibiotic treatment group (n = 23) versus unsuccessful antibiotic treatment group (n = 14) were compared. Appendiceal wall thickness, appendiceal diameter, the severity of mural enhancement, intra-abdominal free fluid, the severity of periappendiceal fat stranding, size of pericecal lymph node, appendicolith, adjacent organ findings and the CT appendicitis score of groups were compared with Pearson Chi-square and Mann Whitney U tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of surgical treatment, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. Diagnostic efficacies of appendiceal diameter, the CT appendicitis score and developed model were quantified by ROC curves. RESULTS Appendiceal diameter (P < .001), adjacent organ findings (P = .041), the CT appendicitis score (P < .001), the severity of periappendiceal fat stranding (P = .002), appendicolith (P = .001) and intra-abdominal free fluid (P <0.001) showed statistically significant differences between the medical and surgical treatment groups. According to the logistic regression test, if the patients with appendiceal diameter ≥13mm (OR = 5.1, 95%CI 1.58 - 16.50), appendicolith (OR = 4, 95%CI 1.17 - 13.63) and intra-abdominal free fluid (OR = 3.04, 95%CI 1.28 - 7.20), surgeons should prefer surgical treatment. The AUCs for the CT appendicitis score, the appendiceal diameter and the model were 0.742 (95% CI 0,659 - 0,824), 0.699 (95% CI 0.613 - 0.786) and 0.745 (95% CI 0.671 - 0.819), respectively. As the successful and unsuccessful medical treatment groups were compared, the only significant parameter was the severity of mural enhancement (P = .005). CONCLUSION CT findings may be helpful in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis whose treatment surgeons are indecisive about. We can recommend surgical treatment in cases with appendix diameter ≥13mm, intraabdominal free fluid, appendicolith, high CT appendicitis score and severe mural enhancement.

Antibiotic treatment for appendicitis in Norway and Sweden: a nationwide survey on treatment practices

Background

Appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen. Uncomplicated appendicitis is as an inflamed appendix without perforation, gangrene or abscess formation. Recent trials show that one can safely treat uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics, given patient approval and appropriate follow-up. A recent study has also indicated no difference between antibiotic treatment and placebo. Our aim was to investigate if Norwegian and Swedish surgical departments treat uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics and to explore their opinions on this treatment practice.

Methods

A questionnaire was distributed to all heads of department in hospitals that treat appendicitis in Norway and Sweden. Answers were collected using a REDCap survey. Answers were compared between centers and nations and the results were presented anonymously.

Results

We sent the questionnaire to 94 eligible recipients and received 61 (65%) answers. In total, 8/61 (13%) departments stated that they have established antibiotic treatment as sole treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis. Almost half of the responders stated that they have used antibiotics sporadically to treat uncomplicated appendicitis. Lack of evidence and guidelines were noted as reasons why antibiotic treatment has not been implemented as sole treatment.

Conclusions

Most Norwegian and Swedish departments have not implemented antibiotic treatment as the sole treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis. Despite several recent large trials on this subject, lack of evidence and guidelines was the most frequently reported reason in our survey.

Diagnostic accuracy using low-dose versus standard radiation dose CT in suspected acute appendicitis: prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced CT is the reference standard used in diagnostic imaging for acute appendicitis in adults. The radiation dose has been of concern. This study aimed to assess whether a lower radiation dose would affect the diagnostic accuracy of CT.

METHODS

This was a prospective single-centre cohort study of patients (aged over 16 years) with suspected appendicitis evaluated for enrolment in concurrent APPAC II-III trials. The diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced low- and standard-dose CT was compared with study protocols guiding imaging based on BMI; this enabled direct CT imaging comparison only in patients with a BMI below 30 kg/m2. The on-call CT diagnosis was compared with the final clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Among all 856 patients investigated, the accuracy of low-dose (454 patients) and standard-dose (402 patients) CT in identifying patients with and without appendicitis was 98·0 and 98·5 per cent respectively. In patients with a BMI under 30 kg/m2, respective values were 98·2 per cent (434 patients) and 98·6 per cent (210 patients) (P = 1·000). The corresponding accuracy for differentiating between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis was 90·3 and 87·6 per cent in all patients, and 89·8 and 88·4 per cent respectively among those with a BMI below 30 kg/m2 (P = 0·663). The median radiation dose in the whole low- and standard-dose CT groups was 3 and 7 mSv respectively. In the group with BMI below 30 kg/m2, corresponding median doses were 3 and 5 mSv (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Low- and standard-dose CT were accurate both in identifying appendicitis and in differentiating between uncomplicated and complicated acute appendicitis. Low-dose CT was associated with a significant radiation dose reduction, suggesting that it should be standard clinical practice at least in patients with a BMI below 30 kg/m2.

Predictive ability of CT findings in the differentiation of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: a retrospective investigation of 201 patients undergone appendectomy at initial admission

BACKGROUND

Paradigm shift toward nonoperative management (NOM) of adult appendicitis has made computed tomography (CT) more important than ever, particularly in differentiating complicated from uncomplicated disease. Complete surgical and pathological data of appendicitis in a place where appendectomy at initial admission is a standard of care would allow retrospective review of preoperative CT for performance and predictive ability in identifying those that may benefit from NOM in the future.

RESULTS

The study included 201 CT scans of consecutive adult patients who presented for appendectomy at initial admission with pathologically confirmed acute appendicitis. Complicated appendicitis referred to gangrene or perforation on pathological or operative findings. The overall CT sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for differentiation of complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis were 87.2%, 75.7% and 81.1%, respectively. The most sensitive CT findings of complicated appendicitis were mucosal enhancement defect (83.2%; 95% CI 74.1-90.0) and moderate-to-severe periappendiceal fat stranding (96.8%; 95% CI 91.1-99.3), both independently predictive of complicated appendicitis with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 4.62 (95% CI 1.86-11.51) and 4.41 (95% CI 1.06-18.29), respectively. Phlegmon, fluid collection, extraluminal appendicolith, periappendiceal air and small bowel dilatation had specificity of 98.1-100%. Intraluminal appendicoliths were found more frequently in complicated appendicitis (52.6% vs. 22.6%) but not predictive for this diagnosis. Independent clinical predictors of complicated appendicitis were lack of pain migration (OR 2.06), neutrophilia ≥ 82% (OR (2.87) and symptoms ≥ 24 h (OR 5.84).

CONCLUSIONS

CT findings were highly accurate in differentiating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis among patients undergone appendectomy at initial admission.

Appendiceal adenocarcinoma found by surgery for acute appendicitis is associated with older age

Background

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis is the most common procedure performed emergently by general surgeons in the United States. The current management of acute appendicitis is increasingly controversial as non-operative management gains favor. Although rare, appendiceal neoplasms are often found as an incidental finding in the setting of appendectomy. Criteria and screening for appendiceal neoplasms are not standardized among surgical societies.

Methods

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all patients who underwent appendectomy over a 9-year period (2010–2018). Over the same time period, patients who underwent appendectomy in two municipal hospitals in The Bronx, New York City, USA were reviewed.

Results

We found a 1.7% incidence of appendiceal neoplasms locally and a 0.53% incidence of appendiceal tumors in a national population sample. Both groups demonstrated an increased incidence of appendiceal carcinoma by age. This finding was most pronounced after the age of 40 in both local and national populations. In our study, the incidence of appendiceal tumors increased with each decade interval up to the age of 80 and peaked at 2.1% in patients between 70 and 79 years.

Conclusions

Appendiceal adenocarcinomas were identified in patients with acute appendicitis that seem to be associated with increasing age. The presence of an appendiceal malignancy should be considered in the management of older patients with acute appendicitis before a decision to embark on non-operative therapy.

Effect of Oral Moxifloxacin vs Intravenous Ertapenem Plus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: The APPAC II Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Antibiotics are an effective and safe alternative to appendectomy for managing uncomplicated acute appendicitis, but the optimal antibiotic regimen is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To compare oral antibiotics with combined intravenous followed by oral antibiotics in the management of computed tomography-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) II multicenter, open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2017 until November 2018 in 9 Finnish hospitals. A total of 599 patients aged 18 to 60 years with computed tomography-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis were enrolled in the trial. The last date of follow-up was November 29, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients randomized to receive oral monotherapy (n = 295) received oral moxifloxacin (400 mg/d) for 7 days. Patients randomized to receive intravenous antibiotics followed by oral antibiotics (n = 288) received intravenous ertapenem (1 g/d) for 2 days followed by oral levofloxacin (500 mg/d) and metronidazole (500 mg 3 times/d) for 5 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was treatment success (≥65%) for both groups, defined as discharge from hospital without surgery and no recurrent appendicitis during 1-year follow-up, and to determine whether oral antibiotics alone were noninferior to intravenous and oral antibiotics, with a margin of 6% for difference.

RESULTS

Among 599 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 36 [12] years; 263 [44%] women), 581 (99.7%) were available for the 1-year follow-up. The treatment success rate at 1 year was 70.2% (1-sided 95% CI, 65.8% to ∞) for patients treated with oral antibiotics and 73.8% (1-sided 95% CI, 69.5% to ∞) for patients treated with intravenous followed by oral antibiotics. The difference was -3.6% ([1-sided 95% CI, -9.7% to ∞]; P = .26 for noninferiority), with the confidence limit exceeding the noninferiority margin.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Among adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, treatment with 7 days of oral moxifloxacin compared with 2 days of intravenous ertapenem followed by 5 days of levofloxacin and metronidazole resulted in treatment success rates greater than 65% in both groups, but failed to demonstrate noninferiority for treatment success of oral antibiotics compared with intravenous followed by oral antibiotics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03236961; EudraCT Identifier: 2015-003633-10.

The impact of COVID-19 on emergency general surgery admissions and operative volumes: A single centre experience

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a significant strain on healthcare resources and utilisation globally. The appearance of the disease in the Republic of Ireland resulted in a broad postponement of scheduled and routine surgical care. The influence of the novel coronavirus, and the associated imposition of public health measures such as school closures and social distancing, on the burden of emergency surgical disease is less clear.

Aim

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the number of patients presenting to our institution with emergent surgical illnesses or requiring emergency general surgical procedures.

Methods

All patients attending our service between March 1st 2020 and April 30th 2020 were identified retrospectively by examining electronic handover and electronic discharge summaries, and data were collected relating to demographics, presenting illness, critical care utilisation, length of stay, operative or endoscopic procedure performed, and in-hospital mortality. Similar data were collected March 1st to April 30th 2019, 2018, and 2017 respectively to allow direct comparison.

Results

151 patients were admitted during the study period, compared to a total of 788 during the proceeding three years (mean 2.49 admissions per night versus 4.35 per night, 42.8% reduction, p < 0.001). Median age of admitted patients was 51.8 years, compared to 50.3 years formerly (p = 0.35). 53 emergency procedures were performed, compared to a median of 70 over the same period in the previous years (mean 0.87 per day versus 1.16 per day, 25.4% reduction, p = 0.05).

Conclusion

A significant overall reduction in the number of patients being admitted to our unit and requiring emergency surgical procedures during March and April 2020 was seen, in line with patterns reported internationally.

Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction at 7-Year Follow-up of Antibiotic Therapy vs Appendectomy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Long-term results support antibiotics for uncomplicated acute appendicitis as an alternative to appendectomy. To our knowledge, treatment-related long-term patient satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) are not known.

Objective

To determine patient satisfaction and QOL after antibiotic therapy and appendectomy for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Interventions

Open appendectomy vs antibiotics with intravenous ertapenem, 1 g once daily, for 3 days followed by 7 days of oral levofloxacin, 500 mg once daily, and metronidazole, 500 mg 3 times per day.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This observational follow-up of the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing appendectomy with antibiotics included 530 patients age 18 to 60 years with computed tomography-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis who were randomized to undergo appendectomy (273 [52%]) or receive antibiotics (257 [49%]). The trial was conducted from November 2009 to June 2012; the last follow-up was May 9, 2018. The data were analyzed in February 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

In this analysis, post hoc secondary end points of postintervention QOL (EQ-5D-5L) and patient satisfaction and treatment preference were evaluated.

Results

Of the 530 patients enrolled in the trial (appendectomy group: 273 [174 men (64%)] with a median age of 35 years; (antibiotic group: 257 [155 men (60%)] with a median age of 33 years), 423 patients (80%) were available for phone interview at a median follow-up of 7 years; 206 patients (80%) took antibiotics and 217 (79%) underwent appendectomy. Of the 206 patients taking antibiotics, 81 (39%) had undergone appendectomy. The QOL between appendectomy and antibiotic group patients was similar (median health index value, 1.0 in both groups; 95% CI, 0.86-1.0; P = .96). Patients who underwent appendectomy were more satisfied in the treatment than patients taking antibiotics (68% very satisfied, 21% satisfied, 6% indifferent, 4% unsatisfied, and 1% very unsatisfied in the appendectomy group and 53% very satisfied, 21% satisfied, 13% indifferent, 7% unsatisfied, and 6% very unsatisfied in the antibiotic group; P < .001) and in a subgroup analysis this difference was based on the antibiotic group patients undergoing appendectomy. There was no difference in patient satisfaction after successful antibiotic treatment compared with appendectomy (cumulative odds ratio [COR], 7.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P < .36). Patients with appendectomy or with successful antibiotic therapy were more satisfied than antibiotic group patients who later underwent appendectomy (COR, 7.7; 95% CI, 4.6-12.9; P < .001; COR, 9.7; 95% CI, 5.4-15.3; P < .001, respectively). Of the 81 patients taking antibiotics who underwent appendectomy, 27 (33%) would again choose antibiotics as their primary treatment.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this analysis, long-term QOL was similar after appendectomy and antibiotic therapy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients taking antibiotics who later underwent appendectomy were less satisfied than patients with successful antibiotics or appendectomy.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01022567.

Suspected appendicitis and COVID-19, a change in investigation and management-a multicentre cohort study

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic has reformed global healthcare delivery. On 25 March 2020, Intercollegiate guidelines were published in the UK to promote safe surgical provision during the COVID-19 outbreak advocating non-operative management or avoidance of laparoscopy when surgery is essential. The effects of this on the investigation and management of appendicitis remain unknown.

Methods

We performed a multicentre, prospective, observational study from the start of the new guidelines to the 6th of May 2020. We included all patients referred to surgical teams with suspected appendicitis. A recent historical cohort was identified for comparison. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of non-operative management in appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included imaging, negative appendicectomy rate (NAR), length of stay (LOS) and 30-day complications.

Results

A total of 63/164 (38%) patients compared to 79/191 (41%) were diagnosed with appendicitis before and after the guidelines were introduced (p = 0.589). CT scanning increased (71/164 vs 105/191; p = 0.033) while ultrasound scanning decreased (71/164 vs 62/191; p = 0.037). Appendicitis was more likely to be managed non-operatively (11/63 vs 51/79; p < 0.001) and, of those managed surgically, with an open approach (3/52 vs 26/28 p < 0.001). The NAR also reduced (5/52 vs 0/28; p = 0.157). LOS was shorter in non-operatively managed patients (1 day vs 3 days; p < 0.001) without a difference in complications (10/51 vs 4/28; p = 0.760).

Conclusion

Introduction of the guidelines was associated with changes in practice. Despite these changes, short-term complications did not increase and LOS decreased. Questions remain on the longer-term complication rates in non-operatively managed patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-020-02023-6.

Appendectomy or Not? An Update on the Evidence for Antibiotics Only Versus Surgery for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis in Children

Appendicitis is a common diagnosis in children being evaluated in the emergency department. After diagnosis, standard treatment has been surgical appendectomy; however, in recent years there is a growing body of evidence evaluating the possibility of nonoperative management in both children and adults. This review will present the current state of the pediatric literature that suggests patients may be successfully treated with antibiotics alone (ie, without surgery), but that a proportion of these patients will have recurrent appendicitis. Given that the literature regarding the option of antibiotic-only management compared with surgery is not yet definitive, there are many factors for providers to discuss with families and patients when considering treatment for acute appendicitis.

The Understated Malignancy Potential of Nonoperative Acute Appendicitis

Cancer of the appendix is rare and is most commonly found incidentally on pathology after an appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis (UA). The medical management alternative with antibiotics and observation remains an ongoing debate. The purpose of our study was to develop modern epidemiological data for adult patients completing an appendectomy for UA secondary to an appendiceal neoplasm (AN). ACS-NSQIP database was queried (2005–2016) to identify patients completing an appendectomy. Cohorts of patients who were diagnosed with UA and an AN were included in the study. Relevant perioperative clinical and outcomes data were collected. Type of AN, surgical procedure, and mortality were analyzed. A total of 239,615 UA patients were identified, of whom 2,773 (1.2%) met the inclusion criteria of AN. Patients with AN were predominantly white (79.5%), with a mean age of 54.5 ± 15.9 years, and 54.6 per cent were females. AN pathology findings included malignant neoplasm (64.5%), malignant carcinoid (17.3%), benign carcinoid (9.3%), and benign neoplasm (8.8%). The overall reported incidence was 1.2 per cent and the mortality rate was 0.7 per cent. Our study emphasizes surgical intervention in adult UA maintains a 1 per cent incidence of AN, and treatment with antibiotics alone will presumably lead to a delay in surgical treatment and progression of disease.

Cost Saving of Short Hospitalization Nonoperative Management for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Nonoperative management (NOM) of uncomplicated appendicitis has gained recognition as an alternative to surgery. In the largest published randomized trial (Appendicitis Acuta), patients received a 3-d hospital stay for intravenous antibiotics; however, cost implications for health care systems remain unknown. We hypothesized short stay protocols would be cost saving compared with a long stay protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We constructed a Markov model comparing the cost of three protocols for NOM of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: (1) long stay (3-d hospitalization), (2) short stay (1-d hospitalization), and (3) emergency department (ED) discharge. The long stay protocol was modeled on data from the APPAC trial. Model variables were abstracted from national database and literature review. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty on the model.

RESULTS

The long stay treatment protocol had a total 5-y projected cost of $10,735 per patient. The short stay treatment protocol costs $8026 per patient, and the ED discharge protocol costs $6,825, which was $2709 and $3910 less than the long stay protocol, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the relative risk of treatment failure with the short stay protocol needed to exceed 6.3 (absolute risk increase of 31%) and with the ED discharge protocol needed to exceed 8.75 (absolute risk increase of 45%) in order for the long stay protocol to become cost saving.

CONCLUSIONS

Short duration hospitalization protocols to treat appendicitis nonoperatively with antibiotics are cost saving under almost all model scenarios. Future consideration of patient preferences and health-related quality of life will need to be made to determine if short stay treatment protocols are cost-effective.

Acute Appendicitis Review: Background, Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Appendicitis is a common occurrence in both the adult and pediatric populations. The condition most commonly occurs between the ages of 10 and 20 years with a lifetime risk of 8.6% and 6.7% for males and females respectively. Its diagnosis focuses on clinical presentation and imaging modalities classified according to scoring systems such as the Alvarado scoring system. A number of imaging modalities can be used, with CT being the most common one. For acute appendicitis, surgical intervention is considered to be the gold standard of treatment. However, recent research has focused on other modalities of treatment including antibiotics and endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) to avoid surgical complications.

[Antibiotics alone as an alternative to appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults: Changes in treatment modalities related to the COVID-19 health crisis]

La saturation intrahospitalière liée à l’arrivée massive de patients atteints du COVID-19 nécessitant une prise en charge urgente conduit à reconsidérer la prise en charge des autres patients. Différer au maximum les hospitalisations et les opérations chirurgicales non urgentes est un des objectifs des chirurgiens afin de désengorger autant que possible le système de soins. Alors que la majorité des opérations programmées sont annulées, la réduction de la chirurgie d’urgence est évidemment compliquée à proposer sans altérer la qualité de la prise en charge et conduire à une perte de chance pour le patient. Cependant, l’appendicite aiguë constitue une situation spécifique bien particulière et la fréquence de cette pathologie conduit à considérer ce cas particulier. En effet, tandis que le traitement recommandé de l’appendicite aiguë non compliquée est chirurgical, l’alternative non chirurgicale par antibiothérapie seule a été largement évaluée dans la littérature au cours de travaux de qualité. Dans la mesure où la limite principale du traitement médical exclusif de l’appendicite aiguë non compliquée est le risque de récidive à distance, cette option thérapeutique représente une alternative de choix pour réduire la surcharge intrahospitalière dans ce contexte de crise sanitaire. L’objectif de ce travail est donc de mettre à disposition des médecins et des chirurgiens un guide pratique issu d’une analyse de la littérature sur le traitement médical de l’appendicite aiguë non compliquée de l’adulte afin de pouvoir proposer ce traitement alternatif aux bons patients et dans des bonnes conditions, notamment lorsque l’accès au bloc opératoire est impossible.

Antibiotics alone as an alternative to appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults: Changes in treatment modalities related to the COVID-19 health crisis

The massive inflow of patients with COVID-19 requiring urgent care has overloaded hospitals in France and impacts the management of other patients. Deferring hospitalization and non-urgent surgeries has become a priority for surgeons today in order to relieve the health care system. It is obviously not simple to reduce emergency surgery without altering the quality of care or leading to a loss of chance for the patient. Acute appendicitis is a very specific situation and the prevalence of this disease leads us to reconsider this particular disease in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, while the currently recommended treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis is surgical appendectomy, the non-surgical alternative of medical management by antibiotic therapy alone has been widely evaluated by high-quality studies in the literature. Insofar as the main limitation of exclusively medical treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is the risk of recurrent appendicitis, this treatment option represents an alternative of choice to reduce the intra-hospital overload in this context of health crisis. The aim of this work is therefore to provide physicians and surgeons with a practical guide based on a review of the literature on the medical treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults, to offer this alternative treatment to the right patients and under good conditions, especially when access to the operating room is limited or impossible.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons (SPIGC): Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

Background: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. Approximately 20% of AA cases are characterized by complications such as gangrene, abscesses, perforation, or diffuse peritonitis, which increase patients' morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of AA can be difficult, and evaluation of clinical signs, laboratory index and imaging should be part of the management of patients with suspicion of AA.Methods: This consensus statement was written in relation to the most recent evidence for diagnosis and treatment of AA, performing a literature review on the most largely adopted scientific sources. The members of the SPIGC (Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons) worked jointly to draft it. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) for the strength of the recommendations.Results: Fever and migratory pain tend to be present in patients with suspicion of AA. Laboratory and radiological examinations are commonly employed in the clinical practice, but today also scoring systems based on clinical signs and laboratory data have slowly been adopted for diagnostic purpose. The clinical presentation of AA in children, pregnant and elderly patients can be unusual, leading to more difficult and delayed diagnosis. Surgery is the best option in case of complicated AA, whereas it is not mandatory in case of uncomplicated AA. Laparoscopic surgical treatment is feasible and recommended. Postoperative antibiotic treatment is recommended only in patients with complicated AA.

Prospective multicentre cohort trial on acute appendicitis and microbiota, aetiology and effects of antimicrobial treatment: study protocol for the MAPPAC (Microbiology APPendicitis ACuta) trial

INTRODUCTION

Based on the epidemiological and clinical data, acute appendicitis can present either as uncomplicated or complicated. The aetiology of these different appendicitis forms remains unknown. Antibiotic therapy has been shown to be safe, efficient and cost-effective for CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Despite appendicitis being one of the most common surgical emergencies, there are very few reports on appendicitis aetiology and pathophysiology focusing on the differences between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Microbiology APPendicitis ACuta (MAPPAC) trial aims to evaluate these microbiological and immunological aspects including immune response in the aetiology of these different forms also assessing both antibiotics non-responders and appendicitis recurrence. In addition, MAPPAC aims to determine antibiotic and placebo effects on gut microbiota composition and antimicrobial resistance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

MAPPAC is a prospective clinical trial with both single-centre and multicentre arm conducted in close synergy with concurrent trials APPendicitis ACuta II (APPAC II) (per oral (p.o.) vs intravenous+p.o. antibiotics, NCT03236961) and APPAC III (double-blind trial placebo vs antibiotics, NCT03234296) randomised clinical trials. Based on the enrolment for these trials, patients with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis are recruited also to the MAPPAC study. In addition to these conservatively treated randomised patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, MAPPAC will recruit patients with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis undergoing appendectomy. Rectal and appendiceal swabs, appendicolith, faecal and serum samples, appendiceal biopsies and clinical data are collected during the hospital stay for microbiological and immunological analyses in both study arms with the longitudinal study arm collecting faecal samples also during follow-up up to 12 months after appendicitis treatment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland (Turku University Hospital, approval number ATMK:142/1800/2016) and the Finnish Medicines Agency. Results of the trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03257423.

Cost analysis of antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: 5-year results of the APPAC randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis has been established at long-term follow-up with the majority of recurrences shown to occur within the first year. Overall costs of antibiotics are significantly lower compared with appendectomy at short-term follow-up, but long-term durability of these cost savings is unclear. The study objective was to compare the long-term overall costs of antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the APPAC (APPendicitis ACuta) trial at 5 years.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This multicentre, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial randomly assigned 530 adult patients with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis to appendectomy or antibiotic treatment at six Finnish hospitals. All major costs during the 5-year follow-up were recorded, whether generated by the initial visit and subsequent treatment or possible recurrent appendicitis. Between November 2009 and June 2012, 273 patients were randomized to appendectomy and 257 to antibiotics. The overall costs of appendectomy were 1.4 times higher (p<0.001) (€5716; 95% CI: €5510 to €5925) compared with antibiotic therapy (€4171; 95% CI: €3879 to €4463) resulting in cost savings of €1545 per patient (95% CI: €1193 to €1899; p<0.001) in the antibiotic group. At 5 years, the majority (61%, n = 156) of antibiotic group patients did not undergo appendectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

At 5-year follow-up antibiotic treatment resulted in significantly lower overall costs compared with appendectomy. As the majority of appendicitis recurrences occur within the first year after the initial antibiotic treatment, these results suggest that treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis with antibiotics instead of appendectomy results in lower overall costs even at longer-term follow-up.

Same-Day Discharge after Non-Perforated Laparoscopic Appendectomy Is Safe

Purpose: Several single-center studies have demonstrated same-day discharge (SDD) to be safe in adults undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for non-perforated appendicitis (NPA). The proportion of SDD appendectomy patients nationally is unknown. We sought to identify the incidence of SDD among patients undergoing LA after NPA hypothesizing a similar risk of complications including superficial surgical site infections (SSSIs), post-operative intra-abdominal abscess, and 30-day readmission rates. Materials and methods: The 2016-2017 ACS-NSQIP Procedure-Targeted Appendectomy database was queried for adults undergoing LA with no intraoperative findings of perforation or abscess. Patients with SDD were compared to those discharged within two days. A multivariable logistic regression model was used for analysis. Results: From 16,931 patients undergoing LA, 3988 (23.6%) were SDD. Compared to those with a longer hospital stay, patients with SDD were of similar age (p = 0.29) and less likely to have a contaminated wound-class (58.5% vs. 62.6%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for age and comorbidities, patients with SDD had a similar risk of 30-day readmission (p = 0.088) and post-operative abscess (p = 0.739) but lower risk of SSSI (OR: 0.48, 0.28-0.82, p = 0.008), compared to those discharged within two days. Conclusions: Nearly a quarter of patients with NPA undergoing LA are discharged the same day. The risk of 30-day readmission is similar compared to those with a longer index hospital stay. Interestingly, the risk of SSSI is lower, however this may be related to differences in wound classification and/or selection bias. Regardless, SDD for NPA patients appears safe and should be utilized whenever possible.