Appendicitis a common disease

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Appendicitis a common disease"

Tamsin Williamson
5 years ago
Views:

Appendicitis a common disease n Suspicion of appendicitis 300/100.

1 Appendicitis a common disease n Suspicion of appendicitis 300/ inh/year n Large variations in use of: - laboratory examination - in-hospital observation with repeat examination - diagnostic imaging - laparoscopic vs open appendectomy - non-surgical treatment n Large variations on costs and outcome 1

2 Untreated appendicitis - a ticking bomb? Balance between perforation - negative appendectomi Proportion perforations (%) Velanovich Proportion negative appendectomies (%) focusing on the negative appendectomy rate is inappropriate. Rather, the primary focus should be upon the perforation rate. 2

3 Appendectomies in Jönköping, 1970 to 2006 Proportions By an improved clinical diagnosis (no diagnostik imaging or laparoscopy) we have seen a decreasing proportion of negative appendectomies. Increasing proportion of perforation Are we putting our patients at risk? Numbers per inhabitants 95% decrease in number of negative appendectomies Unchanged number of perforations 60% decrease in number of non-perforated appendicitis Incidence per inh Proportion (%) Negative Perforation Year period Perforated Non/perforated Not inflamed R Andersson et al. BMJ Time period Wide indications for surgery does not prevent perforations but detects more cases of appendicitis that would otherwise resolve Incidence per inh Perforated Non perforated Incidence of negative explorations per inh R Andersson et al. BMJ 1994 Review of 7 studies, n=53,143 3

4 Diagnostic laparoscopy on wide indications detects more appendicitis cases that would otherwise resolve Early laparoscopy vs conventional treatment in patients with right iliac fossa pain Early Conventional Decadt et al, 1999 laparoscopy management p-value Number patients operated appendicitis Morino et al, 2006 Number patients operated appendicitis Resolving appendicitis is common! n Many cases of appendicitis goes undetected n Not all patients with appendicitis need treatment n Increased use of diagnostic imaging will result in increased detection of appendicitis 4

5 Appendectomy rate per inh. Swedish hospitals Perforated Non-perforated Negative Other diagnoses Incidence per inh Routine imaging compared to selective imaging Comparison of two hospitals in Sweden Danderyds hospital Ryhov hospital Non-perforated Non-perforated Perforated Perforated Negative Negative 5

6 Increasing incidence of appendicitis in the USA from the middle of the 1990s Livingstone et al, Ann Surg 2007 Imaging for the diagnosis of appendicitis Rao The radiologist makes the diagnosis better and cheaper 6

7 Imaging has good diagnostic properties Ultrasound CT 35 studies Sens 0.75 Spec 0.94 ROC area studies Sens 0.94 Spec 0.93 ROC area 0.98 But how does it compare with clinical diagnosis? n Restrospective studies comparing patients that had imaging with those who did not! - selection bias 7

8 But how does it compare with clinical diagnosis? n Comparison of provisional clinical diagnosis with final diagnosis after imaging - provisional diagnosis is provisional! - clinical presentation changes with time Toorenvliet BR et al 2010 But how does it compare with clinical diagnosis? n Retrospective studies comparing outcomes in the pre- and post-imaging era - was imaging the only intervention? - are the patients comparable? 8

9 Increased use of CT - no impact on outcome Rao s report in NEJM Okt 1996-mars CT examinations 106 operations 16 not inflamed (15%) April sept CT examinations 120 operations 16 not inflamed (13%) Mc Donald G, Am Surg 2001 Frei et al, Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:

10 july1992- sept p-value Observation period, months CT scans Operations Proportion negative 20% 7% <0.001 Proportion perforated 22% 14% Recalculated as numbers per month: Negative Perforerated ns Non-perforated <0.001 Increased use of CT leads to more operations! Randomised trials: Ultrasound compared with clinical diagnosis n Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score. Douglas C et al. BMJ patients had US and 142 conventional management (observation) - US has high sensitivity (0.95) and specificity (0.89) - no effect on proportion of negative appendectomy (9 vs 11%, p=0.59) - more appendicitis cases in US group (46 vs 39%, p=0.23) n.. US could lead to an increase in therapeutic operations by correctly diagnosing appendicitis in patients who may have recovered during a period of observation. n graded compression ultrasonography has not been shown to produce better outcomes than clinical diagnosis alone. 10

11 Randomised trials: CT compared with clinical diagnosis n Walker et al, Am J Surg patients with suspicion of appendicitis - proportion of operations was the same (57 vs 57%) - slightly more appendicitis cases after CT scan (54 vs 46%) - fewer negative appendectomies (3 vs 11%, p=0.09) CT scan should be routinely performed for every patient whom the surgeon suspects of having appendicitis n Hong et al, Surg Inf patients with indeterminate Alvarado score - no difference in negative appendectomy (8 vs 14%, p=0.50) Computed tomography should not be considered the standard of care for the diagnosis of appendicitis. n Lopez et al, Am Surg women in childbearing age - no difference in negative appendectomy (5 vs 12%, p=0.62) CT in women of childbearing age who presented with right lower quadrant was not significantly different from clinical assessment STRAPP-score study Baseline registration N=1793 Intervention Lecture on the use of AIR score 25 hospitals Total 4468 patients Implementation of AIR-score and algorithm N=2675 Score <5 Observation at home N=996 Score 5-8 Randomisation N=1078 Score>8 Operation N=262 Imaging N=548 Repeat scoring 4-8 hours of observation N=530 11

12 STRAPP-score study Preliminary results Number of randomised patients with AIR score 5-8 Observation Imaging p-value Negative appendectomy Non-perforated appendicitis Perforated appendicitis Appendicitis abscess Other diagnosis Not operated Total Conclusion n Randomized trials does not support that diagnostic imaging is better than clinical assessment for diagnosing acute appendicitis! n The routine use of diagnostic imaging in patients with suspicion of appendicitis may lead to more (unnecessary) operations for resolving appendicitis! n We need to better define the role of imaging in the algoritm for the managament of patients with suspicion of appendicitis. 12

Gastrointestinal Imaging Original Research

Gastrointestinal Imaging Original Research Lee et al. Low-Dose CT in Cases of Suspected Appendicitis Gastrointestinal Imaging Original Research Yoon Jin Lee 1 Bohyoung Kim 1 Yousun Ko 1 Kyung Eun Cho 1