Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology 3/2021

10.09.2020 | Hollow Organ GI

Differentiation between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: diagnostic model development and validation study

verfasst von: Hae Young Kim, Ji Hoon Park, Sung Soo Lee, Jong-June Jeon, Chang Jin Yoon, Kyoung Ho Lee

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Differentiating complicated appendicitis has become important, as multiple trials showed that non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is feasible. We developed and validated a diagnostic model to differentiate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis.

Methods

This retrospective study included 1153 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 30 ± 8 years) with appendicitis on CT (804 patients for development, and 349 for validation). Complicated appendicitis was confirmed in 300 and 121 patients in the development and validation datasets, respectively. The reference standard was surgical or pathological report except in 7 patients who underwent percutaneous abscess drainage. We developed a model using multivariable logistic regression and Bayesian information criterion. We assessed calibration and discriminatory performance of the model in the validation dataset via calibration plot and the area under the curve (AUC), respectively. We measured sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and proportion of false- and true-negatives of the model in the validation dataset, targeting 95% sensitivity.

Results

Five CT features (contrast-enhancement defect of the appendiceal wall, abscess, moderate or severe periappendiceal fat stranding, appendiceal diameter, and extraluminal air) and percentage of segmented neutrophil were included in our model. The calibration slope was 1.03, and AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77–0.85) in the validation dataset. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and proportion of false- and true-negatives were 93.4% (91.8–99.1), 28.1% (13.6–24.1), 40.8% (35.0–46.8), 88.9% (79.3–95.1), 2.3%, and 18.3%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our model may identify patients with unequivocally uncomplicated appendicitis, who may benefit from non-operative management with low risk of failure.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T et al (2015) Antibiotic therapy vs appendectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: the APPAC randomized clinical trial. JAMA 313: 2340-2348CrossRef Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T et al (2015) Antibiotic therapy vs appendectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: the APPAC randomized clinical trial. JAMA 313: 2340-2348CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN (2012) Safety and efficacy of antibiotics compared with appendicectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 344: e2156CrossRef Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN (2012) Safety and efficacy of antibiotics compared with appendicectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 344: e2156CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S et al (2011) Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377: 1573-1579CrossRef Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S et al (2011) Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377: 1573-1579CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Salminen P, Tuominen R, Paajanen H et al (2018) Five-year follow-up of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the APPAC randomized clinical trial. JAMA 320: 1259-1265CrossRef Salminen P, Tuominen R, Paajanen H et al (2018) Five-year follow-up of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the APPAC randomized clinical trial. JAMA 320: 1259-1265CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Foley WD (2018) CT features for complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis: what is the evidence? Radiology 287: 116-118CrossRef Foley WD (2018) CT features for complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis: what is the evidence? Radiology 287: 116-118CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim HY, Park JH, Lee YJ, Lee SS, Jeon JJ, Lee KH (2018) Systematic review and meta-analysis of CT features for differentiating complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Radiology 287: 104-115CrossRef Kim HY, Park JH, Lee YJ, Lee SS, Jeon JJ, Lee KH (2018) Systematic review and meta-analysis of CT features for differentiating complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Radiology 287: 104-115CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Atema JJ, van Rossem CC, Leeuwenburgh MM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA (2015) Scoring system to distinguish uncomplicated from complicated acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 102: 979-990CrossRef Atema JJ, van Rossem CC, Leeuwenburgh MM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA (2015) Scoring system to distinguish uncomplicated from complicated acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 102: 979-990CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Avanesov M, Wiese NJ, Karul M et al (2018) Diagnostic prediction of complicated appendicitis by combined clinical and radiological appendicitis severity index (APSI). Eur Radiol 28: 3601-3610CrossRef Avanesov M, Wiese NJ, Karul M et al (2018) Diagnostic prediction of complicated appendicitis by combined clinical and radiological appendicitis severity index (APSI). Eur Radiol 28: 3601-3610CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat LOCAT Group (2017) Low-dose CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents and young adults (LOCAT): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2: 793-804CrossRef LOCAT Group (2017) Low-dose CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents and young adults (LOCAT): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2: 793-804CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahn S, LOCAT Group (2014) LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15: 28CrossRef Ahn S, LOCAT Group (2014) LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15: 28CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD). Ann Intern Med 162: 735-736CrossRef Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD). Ann Intern Med 162: 735-736CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Park SB, Kim MJ, Ko Y et al (2019) Structured reporting versus free-text reporting for appendiceal computed tomography in adolescents and young adults: preference survey of 594 referring physicians, surgeons, and radiologists from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 20: 246-255CrossRef Park SB, Kim MJ, Ko Y et al (2019) Structured reporting versus free-text reporting for appendiceal computed tomography in adolescents and young adults: preference survey of 594 referring physicians, surgeons, and radiologists from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 20: 246-255CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Daly CP, Cohan RH, Francis IR, Caoili EM, Ellis JH, Nan B (2005) Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. Am J Roentgenol 184: 1813-1820CrossRef Daly CP, Cohan RH, Francis IR, Caoili EM, Ellis JH, Nan B (2005) Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. Am J Roentgenol 184: 1813-1820CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Raptopoulos V, Katsou G, Rosen MP, Siewert B, Goldberg SN, Kruskal JB (2003) Acute appendicitis: effect of increased use of CT on selecting patients earlier. Radiology 226: 521-526CrossRef Raptopoulos V, Katsou G, Rosen MP, Siewert B, Goldberg SN, Kruskal JB (2003) Acute appendicitis: effect of increased use of CT on selecting patients earlier. Radiology 226: 521-526CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Bhangu A, Soreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT (2015) Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 386: 1278-1287CrossRef Bhangu A, Soreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT (2015) Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 386: 1278-1287CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lally KP, Cox CS, Andrassy RJ (2004) Appendix. In: Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL (ed) Sabiston textbook of surgery: the biological basis of modern surgical practice. 17th edn. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, pp 1382 Lally KP, Cox CS, Andrassy RJ (2004) Appendix. In: Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL (ed) Sabiston textbook of surgery: the biological basis of modern surgical practice. 17th edn. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, pp 1382
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim HJ, Kim MS, Park JH et al (2017) Meaningful standard of reference for appendiceal perforation: pathology, surgery, or both? Ann Surg Treat Res 93: 88-97CrossRef Kim HJ, Kim MS, Park JH et al (2017) Meaningful standard of reference for appendiceal perforation: pathology, surgery, or both? Ann Surg Treat Res 93: 88-97CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Andersson RE (2004) Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 91: 28-37CrossRef Andersson RE (2004) Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 91: 28-37CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim HY, Park JH, Lee SS et al (2019) CT in differentiating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis: presence of any of 10 CT features versus radiologists’ gestalt assessment. Am J Roentgenol 213: W218-w227CrossRef Kim HY, Park JH, Lee SS et al (2019) CT in differentiating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis: presence of any of 10 CT features versus radiologists’ gestalt assessment. Am J Roentgenol 213: W218-w227CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49: 1373-1379CrossRef Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49: 1373-1379CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Han K, Song K, Choi BW (2016) How to develop, validate, and compare clinical prediction models involving radiological parameters: study design and statistical methods. Korean J Radiol 17: 339-350CrossRef Han K, Song K, Choi BW (2016) How to develop, validate, and compare clinical prediction models involving radiological parameters: study design and statistical methods. Korean J Radiol 17: 339-350CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) Model assessment and selection. In: Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (ed) The elements of statistical learning 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 241-249CrossRef Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) Model assessment and selection. In: Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (ed) The elements of statistical learning 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 241-249CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9: 137-163CrossRef King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9: 137-163CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44: 837-845CrossRef DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44: 837-845CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Alvarado A (1986) A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 15: 557-564CrossRef Alvarado A (1986) A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 15: 557-564CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Andersson M, Andersson RE (2008) The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score. World J Surg 32: 1843-1849CrossRef Andersson M, Andersson RE (2008) The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score. World J Surg 32: 1843-1849CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ (2011) Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 154: 789-796CrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ (2011) Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 154: 789-796CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD et al (2010) Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 256: 460-465CrossRef Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD et al (2010) Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 256: 460-465CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Livingston EH, Woodward WA, Sarosi GA, Haley RW (2007) Disconnect between incidence of nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: implications for pathophysiology and management. Ann Surg 245: 886-892CrossRef Livingston EH, Woodward WA, Sarosi GA, Haley RW (2007) Disconnect between incidence of nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: implications for pathophysiology and management. Ann Surg 245: 886-892CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Mällinen J, Rautio T, Grönroos J et al (2019) Risk of appendiceal neoplasm in periappendicular abscess in patients treated with interval appendectomy vs follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging: 1-year outcomes of the peri-appendicitis acuta randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 154: 200-207CrossRef Mällinen J, Rautio T, Grönroos J et al (2019) Risk of appendiceal neoplasm in periappendicular abscess in patients treated with interval appendectomy vs follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging: 1-year outcomes of the peri-appendicitis acuta randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 154: 200-207CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Differentiation between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: diagnostic model development and validation study
verfasst von
Hae Young Kim
Ji Hoon Park
Sung Soo Lee
Jong-June Jeon
Chang Jin Yoon
Kyoung Ho Lee
Publikationsdatum
10.09.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02737-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Abdominal Radiology 3/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

26.04.2024 Mammografie Nachrichten

Routinemäßige Mammografien helfen, Brustkrebs frühzeitig zu erkennen. Anhand der Röntgenuntersuchung lassen sich aber auch kardiovaskuläre Risikopatientinnen identifizieren. Als zuverlässiger Anhaltspunkt gilt die Verkalkung der Brustarterien.

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

23.04.2024 Pankreaskarzinom Nachrichten

Die Empfehlungen zur Therapie des Pankreaskarzinoms wurden um zwei Off-Label-Anwendungen erweitert. Und auch im Bereich der Früherkennung gibt es Aktualisierungen.

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

18.04.2024 Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin Nachrichten

Im Choosing-Wisely-Programm, das für die deutsche Initiative „Klug entscheiden“ Pate gestanden hat, sind erstmals Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit Notfällen von Kindern erschienen. Fünf Dinge gilt es demnach zu vermeiden.

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

13.04.2024 Klinik aktuell Kongressbericht

Die Teilnehmer eines Forums beim DGIM-Kongress waren sich einig: Fehler in der Medizin sind häufig in ungeeigneten Prozessen und mangelnder Kommunikation begründet. Gespräche mit Patienten und im Team können helfen.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.