Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Necrotizing Vaginitis in a 45-Year-Old Woman With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Vaginitis emphysematosa (VE) is a rare, benign, and self-limited condition often diagnosed by the presence of intramuscular vaginal air observed on computed tomography (CT) scan. Although it is a nonpathologic, self-limited condition requiring no intervention, it is important to rule out a more serious infectious pathology. This report highlights a clinical dilemma and the potential consequences of over-reliance on CT in distinguishing benign VE from pathologic necrotizing vaginitis. A high clinical suspicion for infection should be maintained, especially when relevant clinical and laboratory markers suggest a more serious pathology. We describe the case of a 45-year-old woman who presented to the hospital with abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. CT scan demonstrated intramuscular vaginal air, which was reported as VE. Classic imaging findings of VE falsely reassured clinicians. She died shortly thereafter of necrotizing vaginitis.

Assessing Communication Quality in the Intensive Care Unit.

Introduction: Successful shared decision-making for critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients requires bidirectional communication. Through observation of ICU conversations, our study aimed to identify communication skill deficiencies in providers who care for patients in the ICU. Methods: This was an observational prospective study performed in a single urban academic medical center (671 beds) from June 2021 through August 2021. Twenty-three providers were recruited from medical and surgical ICU services (56 beds). Thirty-nine surrogate decision makers were identified. Provider skills were assessed using a customized observational tool that examined nonverbal communication, verbal communication, opening the discussion, gathering information, understanding the family's perspective, sharing information, reaching agreements on problems and plans, and providing closure. Results: Thirty-nine conversations were observed for six attending physicians, four fellow physicians, eight resident physicians, two nurse practitioners, and three physician assistants during the coronavirus 19 (COVID19) pandemic. A dedicated critical care provider engaged in 19 observed conversations; 20 discussions occurred with individuals rotating/consulting in the ICU. Communication skill did not depend on experience or area of expertise. Less than half of conversations achieved bidirectional communication proficiency. Scheduled conversations (n = 14) had significantly higher average communication scores than unscheduled encounters (n = 25). Conclusions: Superficial unidirectional communication with decision makers was commonly observed. Providers were less proficient at advanced communication skills needed for shared decision-making. We recommend that providers have more scheduled conversations, which were more productive in achieving bidirectional communication. A targeted simulation curriculum addressing these areas may improve patient, decision maker, and provider satisfaction, while promoting patient-centered care.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective: To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Interventions: Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Conclusions and Relevance: Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis.

Importance: In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. Objective: To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. Exposures: Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. Results: Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

It Takes a Village: The Management of Extreme Sequelae of Skin Popping.

INTRODUCTION: Skin popping (SP) is a popular technique for drug misuse, for its ease of administration and longer duration of effect. Skin infection is a well-described sequela of SP, but less is known about the more extreme sequelae of this practice. METHODS: Five patients who engaged in SP requiring major surgical intervention were identified on case review to highlight extreme diseases resulting from the practice of SP. Each patient reported using heroin or tested positive for opioid on admission. Each patient admitted to practicing SP or maintained a shooter's patch. A multidisciplinary approach was employed to care for the patient. Members of the departments of medicine, surgery, nursing, addiction medicine, infectious disease, rehabilitation, and social work collaborated in the complex management of each patient. RESULTS: Five patients presented to Rush University Medical Center between 2017 and 2019 for complications of SP. All 5 patients were actively using nonprescription opioids; 2 were concurrently undergoing treatment for opioid use disorder. Recurrent SP led to failed surgical treatment in all but 1 patient. Surgical outcome was directly related to recidivism. CONCLUSION: The successful surgical management of severe sequelae of SP depends upon the successful management of the patient's addiction. Multidisciplinary care by surgical, medical, psychiatric, addiction, nursing, rehabilitation, and social work specialists is necessary to achieve a successful outcome. Based on this experience, the author's institution no longer offers nonurgent closure procedures to patients whose addiction is not well controlled.

Avoiding Opioid Misuse After Surgery in the Era of the Opioid Epidemic : Defining the New Normal.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain patients at risk of addiction can be identified through pre-prescription screening with the opioid risk tool (ORT); there is no equivalent for surgical patients. Our aims were to validate the ORT in the surgical population and assess the impact of patient education on compliance with proper storage and disposal (S&D) of unused opioid therapy (UOT). METHODS: Each subject completed the ORT, prevideo and postvideo surveys, educational video viewing, and compliance survey. Aberrant behavior was assessed by questionnaire, chart review, and Illinois Prescription Monitoring Program review. RESULTS: We recruited 24 subjects who underwent emergency surgery; 18 (of 24) were prescribed an opioid on discharge and 15 (of 18) were followed for 1 month. Before education, 38% (n = 9 of 24) of subjects identified proper UOT disposal and 63% (n = 15 of 24) identified safe handling of opioids. After education, 75% (n = 18 of 24) identified proper S&D. On ORT, 9 of 24 subjects (38%) scored moderate-risk to high-risk for opioid misuse. Half of subjects who demonstrated aberrant behavior (n = 7 of 12, 58%) scored in the low-risk range on ORT; 67% of subjects (n = 10 of 15) retained UOT, and 67% (n = 10 of 15) safely stored UOT. Few subjects (30%; n = 3 of 10) who stored their UOT reported proper disposal of UOT. DISCUSSION: The ORT is not useful in identifying acute pain surgical patients at risk for aberrant behavior. An educational video increased awareness of, but not compliance with, safe S&D of UOT. Opioid overprescription continues to contribute to opioid misuse.

Successful non-operative management of intraabdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome after complex ventral hernia repair: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) are devastating complications of surgery. Patients who undergo complex ventral hernia repair (CVHR) may be at risk for IAH and ACS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 175 patients who underwent CVHR by a single surgeon. Body mass index (BMI), prior hernia repair, operative time, bladder pressure, serum creatinine, sedation, paralytic therapy, and ventilator support were reviewed. RESULTS: IAH was identified in 33 patients; 11 patients developed ACS. Paralytic therapy was employed in 29 patients for an average of 1.4 days. Elevated BMI was independently associated with an increased risk of IAH (p = 0.006) and ACS (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo CVHR are at risk of developing IAH and ACS in the postoperative period. Elevated BMI and longer operative time are independent risk factors for the development of IAH. IAH and ACS can be successfully managed with surgical critical care.

Multicenter validation of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grading system for acute colonic diverticulitis and its use for emergency general surgery quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) has developed a new grading system for uniform description of anatomic severity of emergency general surgery (EGS) diseases, ranging from Grade I (mild) to Grade V (severe). The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of AAST grades for acute colonic diverticulitis with patient outcomes. A secondary purpose was to propose an EGS quality improvement program using risk-adjusted center outcomes, similar to National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and Trauma Quality Improvement Program methodologies. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 1,105 patients (one death) from 13 centers. At each center, two reviewers (blinded to each other's assignments) assigned AAST grades. Interrater reliability was measured using κ coefficient. Relationship between AAST grade and clinical events (complications, intensive care unit use, surgical intervention, and 30-day readmission) as well as length of stay was measured using regression analyses to control for age, comorbidities, and physiologic status at the time of admission. Final model was also used to calculate observed-to-expected (O-E) ratios for adverse outcomes (death, complications, readmissions) for each center. RESULTS: Median age was 54 years, 52% were males, 43% were minorities, and 22% required a surgical intervention. Almost two thirds had Grade I or II disease. There was a high level of agreement for grades between reviewers (κ = 0.81). Adverse events increased from 13% for Grade I, to 18% for Grade II, 28% for Grade III, 44% for Grade IV, and 50% for Grade V. Regression analysis showed that higher disease grades were independently associated with all clinical events and length of stay, after adjusting for age, comorbidities, and physiology. O-E ratios showed statistically insignificant variations in risk of death, complications, or readmissions. CONCLUSION: AAST grades for acute colonic diverticulitis are independently associated with clinical outcomes and resource use. EGS quality improvement program methodology that incorporates AAST grade, age, comorbidities, and physiologic status may be used for measuring quality of EGS care. High-quality EGS registries are essential for developing meaningful quality metrics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level V.