Association of treatments for acute appendicitis with pregnancy outcomes in the United States from 2000 to 2016: Results from a multi-level analysis

Antibiotic versus surgery in the treatment of acute appendicitis in the pregnant population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in pregnant women. There has been a wide variance in clinical practice worldwide, with some favoring an antibiotic-only approach while others prefer surgery as the first-line management. Therefore, we designed the current analysis to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics versus surgery management. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, and Cochrane Central from March 4, 1904 until November 25, 2022, to look for studies comparing antibiotics and surgery in pregnant patients with acute appendicitis. We only included studies that provided a comparison between the two treatments. We included preterm delivery, fetal loss, maternal death, and complications as outcomes. The results were compared using an odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. We also performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding studies with a serious risk of bias. Results: We included five non-randomized studies for the analysis. We found that patients in the antibiotic group had a lower risk of preterm labor (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.92]; p 0.02) but a higher risk of complications (OR 1.79 [95% CI 1.19-2.69]; p 0.005). We did not find any difference in the other outcomes. Conclusion: The increased risk of complications should caution clinicians about using antibiotics as the first-line management. More studies are required to identify patients who would benefit the most before antibiotics could be adopted as a treatment for acute appendicitis in pregnant patients.

Non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy and the effects on maternal and fetal outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Non-obstetric surgery is fairly common in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review to update data on non-obstetric surgery in pregnant women. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy on pregnancy, fetal and maternal outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and Scopus was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search span was from January 2000 to November 2022. Thirty-six studies matched the inclusion criteria, and 24 publications were identified through reference mining; 60 studies were included in this review. Outcome measures were miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, low birth weight, low Apgar score, and infant and maternal morbidity and mortality rates.

RESULTS

We obtained data for 80,205 women who underwent non-obstetric surgery and data for 16,655,486 women who did not undergo surgery during pregnancy. Prevalence of non-obstetric surgery was between 0.23% and 0.74% (median 0.37%). Appendectomy was the most common procedure with median prevalence of 0.10%. Near half (43%) of the procedures were performed during the second trimester, 32% during the first trimester, and 25% during the third trimester. Half of surgeries were scheduled, and half were emergent. Laparoscopic and open techniques were used equally for abdominal cavity. Women who underwent non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy had increased rate of stillbirth (odds ratio (OR) 2.0) and preterm birth (OR 2.1) compared to women without surgery. Surgery during pregnancy did not increase rate of miscarriage (OR 1.1), low 5 min Apgar scores (OR 1.1), the fetus being small for gestational age (OR 1.1) or congenital anomalies (OR 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of non-obstetric surgery has decreased during last decades, but still two out of 1000 pregnant women have scheduled surgery during pregnancy. Surgery during pregnancy increases the risk of stillbirth, and preterm birth. For abdominal cavity surgery, both laparoscopic and open approaches are feasible.

A novel Appendicitis TriMOdal prediction Score (ATMOS) for acute appendicitis in pregnancy: a retrospective observational study

Several scoring systems exist for the management of acute appendicitis (AA) during pregnancy. However, the systems are based on the nonpregnant adult population. The aim of this study was to create a highly accurate scoring system that can be applied to pregnant women and to compare it to the most commonly used scores in general population and pregnant women. The creation and subsequent implementation of a highly accurate score system could shorten the diagnostic period and minimize the use of (ionizing) diagnostic imaging allowing the selection of the best treatment approach in pregnant patients with acute appendicitis. A single-center, retrospective cohort observational study was conducted at the University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. Data were extracted from medical records of pregnant patients with suspected AA from January 2010 to December 2020. A total of 59 pregnant patients diagnosed with AA during pregnancy were identified, 41 were treated surgically, and 18 had non-surgical management. The main objective of our study was the detection of predictive factors of AA during pregnancy. Anorexia, pain migration to the right lower quadrant, rebound pain, axillary temperature over 37.3 °C, CRP/platelet ratio > 0.0422, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio > 7.182, and ultrasonic signs of AA were scored. Scoring in Appendicitis TriMOdal Score (ATMOS) consists of positive clinical parameter, each bringing 1 point and other parameters mentioned above that bring 2 points each. The score ranges from 0 to 10. Our model of ATMOS yields a high area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.963. The positive likelihood ratio is 9.97 (95% CI 2.64-38.00), and the negative likelihood ratio is 0.1 (95% CI 0.03-0.31), meaning that 94% of cases with ATMOS > 4 have AA, while less than 13% with an ATMOS ≤ 4 have the diagnosis of AA. The potential of ATMOS differentiating AA during pregnancy was demonstrated. Future prospective, randomized trials are needed to evaluate its accuracy and whether it should be used instead of Alvarado or Tzanakis scores in clinical decision-making.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT05202483. Date of registration: January 21, 2022.