Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0.

Importance: When considering nonoperative treatment in a patient with acute appendicitis, it is crucial to accurately rule out complicated appendicitis. The Atema score, also referred to as the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS), has been designed to differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis but has not been prospectively externally validated. Objective: To externally validate the SAS and, in case of failure, to develop an improved SAS (2.0) for estimating the probability of complicated appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study included adult patients who underwent operations for suspected acute appendicitis at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2020 and August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appendicitis severity was predicted according to the SAS in 795 patients and its sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for complicated appendicitis were calculated. Since the predefined targets of 95% for both were not met, the SAS 2.0 was developed using the same cohort. This clinical prediction model was developed with multivariable regression using clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings. The SAS 2.0 was externally validated in a temporal validation cohort consisting of 565 patients. Results: In total, 1360 patients were included, 463 of whom (34.5%) had complicated appendicitis. Validation of the SAS resulted in a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 78.8-87.6) and an NPV of 85.0% (95% CI, 80.6-88.8), meaning that the predefined targets were not achieved. Therefore, the SAS 2.0 was developed, internally validated (C statistic, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89), and subsequently externally validated (C statistic, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89). The SAS 2.0 was designed to calculate a patient's individual probability of having complicated appendicitis along with a 95% CI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, external validation of the SAS fell short in accurately distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. The newly developed and externally validated SAS 2.0 was able to assess an individual patient's probability of having complicated appendicitis with high accuracy in patients with acute appendicitis. Use of this patient-specific risk assessment tool can be helpful when considering and discussing nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis with patients.

Diagnostic accuracy of doctors at the emergency department and radiologists in differentiating between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of final judgements of doctors at the emergency department (ED) and radiologists to differentiate between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis, because these have different treatment options. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study included adult patients with imaging-confirmed acute appendicitis, operated with intention to appendectomy. Both doctors at ED and radiologists assessed appendicitis severity as a final judgement of "uncomplicated" or "complicated" appendicitis. Doctors at ED integrated clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings. Radiologists relied solely on imaging findings. Outcomes were accuracy of these judgements for diagnosis of complicated appendicitis compared to the reference standard by an adjudication committee. RESULTS: After imaging, 1070 patients with confirmed acute appendicitis were included. Doctors at ED accurately labelled 656 of 701 (93.6%) patients with true uncomplicated appendicitis as uncomplicated, and 163 of 369 (44.2%) patients with true complicated appendicitis were labelled as complicated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for complicated appendicitis were 44.2%, 93.6%, and 78.4% and 76.1%, respectively. Comparable accuracy was found for the radiologist's assessment in 941 patients, with true positive rates of 92.2% (581 of 630 patients) for uncomplicated appendicitis and 46.6% (145 of 311 patients) for complicated appendicitis. CONCLUSION: More than half of all patients with true complicated appendicitis is incorrectly classified as uncomplicated appendicitis according to the judgements of doctors at ED, integrating clinical, laboratory, and imaging results, and of radiologists assessing diagnostic imaging. These judgements are thereby not sufficiently reliable in ruling out complicated appendicitis.

Daytime versus Nighttime in Acute Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients with appendicitis presenting at nighttime. It is hypothesized that patients presented at night more frequently have a complicated (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis and therefore develop more postoperative complications. METHODS: In this study data were used from the nationwide, prospective SNAPSHOT study appendicitis, including 1975 patients undergoing surgery for suspected appendicitis. This study included only adults. Two primary outcomes were defined: (A) The proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and (B) the proportion of patients with a complication postoperatively presenting during daytime versus nighttime period. Analysis for both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was performed, and a multivariate model was used to correct for baseline characteristics and time to surgery. RESULTS: In total, 1361 adult patients with appendicitis were analyzed. Both at nighttime and at daytime, 34% had complicated appendicitis. In patients presenting in the daytime, 12.1% developed a postoperative complication versus 18.6% for presentation at night (p = 0.008). In a multivariate analysis, the risk for a postoperative complication when presenting at night was significantly increased (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.14-2.66, p = 0.01). Surgery within eight hours after presentation does not lower this risk (adjusted OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.97-1.95, p = 0.078). CONCLUSION: Complicated appendicitis is seen as frequently during the day as at nighttime. For patients who present at nighttime with acute appendicitis, the risk of a postoperative complication is higher compared with a presentation at daytime. In multivariate analysis, nighttime presentation but not surgery within 8 h after presentation is independently associated with postoperative complication risk.

Optimising diagnostics to discriminate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis: a prospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence is showing that complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis are two different entities that may be treated differently. A correct diagnosis of the type of appendicitis is therefore essential. The Scoring system of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) combines clinical, laboratory and imaging findings. The SAS rules out complicated appendicitis in 95% (negative predictive value, NPV) and detects 95% (sensitivity) of patients with complicated appendicitis in adults suspected of acute appendicitis. However, this scoring system has not yet been validated externally. In this study, we aim to provide a prospective external validation of the SAS in a new cohort of patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis. We will optimise the score when necessary. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SAS will be validated in 795 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis confirmed by imaging. Data will be collected prospectively in multiple centres. The predicted diagnosis based on the SAS score will be compared with the combined surgical and histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for ruling out complicated appendicitis will be calculated. If the SAS does not reach a sensitivity and NPV of 95% in its present form, the score will be optimised. After optimisation, a second external validation will be performed in a new group of 328 patients. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical perspective of the treating physician for differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and the patient's preferences for different treatment options will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference W19_416 # 19.483). Because of the observational nature of this study, the study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals. This protocol is submitted for publication before analysis of the results.

Re-Assessment in Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis.

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

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.