| 1. |
- Andersson, Manne, et al.
(author)
-
Can New Inflammatory Markers Improve the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis?
- 2014
-
In: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 38:11, s. 2777-2783
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The diagnosis of appendicitis is difficult and resource consuming. New inflammatory markers have been proposed for the diagnosis of appendicitis, but their utility in combination with traditional diagnostic variables has not been tested. Our objective is to explore the potential of new inflammatory markers for improving the diagnosis of appendicitis. The diagnostic properties of the six most promising out of 21 new inflammatory markers (interleukin [IL]-6, chemokine ligand [CXCL]-8, chemokine C-C motif ligand [CCL]-2, serum amyloid A [SAA], matrix metalloproteinase [MMP]-9, and myeloperoxidase [MPO]) were compared with traditional diagnostic variables included in the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score (right iliac fossa pain, vomiting, rebound tenderness, guarding, white blood cell [WBC] count, proportion neutrophils, C-reactive protein and body temperature) in 432 patients with suspected appendicitis by uni- and multivariable regression models. Of the new inflammatory variables, SAA, MPO, and MMP9 were the strongest discriminators for all appendicitis (receiver operating characteristics [ROC] 0.71) and SAA was the strongest discriminator for advanced appendicitis (ROC 0.80) compared with defence or rebound tenderness, which were the strongest traditional discriminators for all appendicitis (ROC 0.84) and the WBC count for advanced appendicitis (ROC 0.89). CCL2 was the strongest independent discriminator beside the AIR score variables in a multivariable model. The AIR score had an ROC area of 0.91 and could correctly classify 58.3 % of the patients, with an accuracy of 92.9 %. This was not improved by inclusion of the new inflammatory markers. The conventional diagnostic variables for appendicitis, as combined in the AIR score, is an efficient screening instrument for classifying patients as low-, indeterminate-, or high-risk for appendicitis. The addition of the new inflammatory variables did not improve diagnostic performance further.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Andersson, Mattias, et al.
(author)
-
Editor's Choice – Structured Computed Tomography Analysis can Identify the Majority of Patients at Risk of Post-Endovascular Aortic Repair Rupture
- 2022
-
In: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 64, s. 166-174
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: The main objective was to report mechanisms and precursors for post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) rupture. The second was to apply a structured protocol to explore whether these factors were identifiable on follow up computed tomography (CT) prior to rupture. The third objective was to study the incidence, treatment, and outcome of post-EVAR rupture. Methods: This was a multicentre, retrospective study of patients treated with standard EVAR at five Swedish hospitals from 2008 to 2018. Patients were identified from the Swedvasc registry. Medical records were reviewed up to 2020. Index EVAR and follow up data were recorded. The primary endpoint was post-EVAR rupture. CT at follow up and at post-EVAR rupture were studied, using a structured protocol, to determine rupture mechanisms and identifiable precursors. Results: In 1 805 patients treated by EVAR, 45 post-EVAR ruptures occurred in 43 patients. The cumulative incidence was 2.5% over a mean follow up of 5.2 years. The incidence rate was 4.5/1 000 person years. Median time to post-EVAR rupture was 4.1 years. A further six cases of post-EVAR rupture in five patients found outside the main cohort were included in the analysis of rupture mechanisms only. The rupture mechanism was type IA in 20 of 51 cases (39%), IB in 20 of 51 (39%) and IIIA/B in 11 of 51 (22%). One of these had type IA + IB combined. One patient had an aortoduodenal fistula without another mechanism being identified. Precursors had been noted on CT follow up prior to post-EVAR rupture in 16 of 51 (31%). Retrospectively, using the structured protocol, precursors could be identified in 43 of 51 (84%). In 17 of 27 (63%) cases missed on follow up but retrospectively identifiable, the mechanisms were type IB/III. Overall, the 30 day mortality rate after post-EVAR rupture was 47% (n = 24/51) and the post-operative mortality rate was 21% (n = 7/33). Conclusions: Most precursors of post-EVAR rupture are underdiagnosed but identifiable before rupture using a structured follow up CT protocol. Precursors of type IB and III failures caused the majority of post-EVAR ruptures.
|
|
| 4. |
- Andersson, Manne, et al.
(author)
-
Randomized clinical trial of Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score-based management of patients with suspected appendicitis
- 2017
-
In: British Journal of Surgery. - : WILEY. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 104:11, s. 1451-1461
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundThe role of imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis is controversial. This prospective interventional study and nested randomized trial analysed the impact of implementing a risk stratification algorithm based on the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score, and compared routine imaging with selective imaging after clinical reassessment. MethodPatients presenting with suspicion of appendicitis between September 2009 and January 2012 from age 10years were included at 21 emergency surgical centres and from age 5years at three university paediatric centres. Registration of clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes started during the baseline period. The AIR score-based algorithm was implemented during the intervention period. Intermediate-risk patients were randomized to routine imaging or selective imaging after clinical reassessment. ResultsThe baseline period included 1152 patients, and the intervention period 2639, of whom 1068 intermediate-risk patients were randomized. In low-risk patients, use of the AIR score-based algorithm resulted in less imaging (192 versus 345 per cent; Pamp;lt;0001), fewer admissions (295 versus 428 per cent; Pamp;lt;0001), and fewer negative explorations (16 versus 32 per cent; P=0030) and operations for non-perforated appendicitis (68 versus 97 per cent; P=0034). Intermediate-risk patients randomized to the imaging and observation groups had the same proportion of negative appendicectomies (64 versus 67 per cent respectively; P=0884), number of admissions, number of perforations and length of hospital stay, but routine imaging was associated with an increased proportion of patients treated for appendicitis (534 versus 463 per cent; P=0020). ConclusionAIR score-based risk classification can safely reduce the use of diagnostic imaging and hospital admissions in patients with suspicion of appendicitis. Registration number: NCT00971438 ( ). Reduces imaging and admissions
|
|
| 5. |
- Andersson, Manne, et al.
(author)
-
Routine versus selective diagnostic imaging in patients with intermediate probability of acute appendicitis : A randomised controlled multicentre study
- 2015
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- BackgroundDiagnostic imaging is increasingly used in patients with suspected appendicitis, with increased costs and concerns about exposure to ionising radiation. Indications suggest that routine imaging is associated with a higher detection rate and treatment of potentially resolving appendicitis. The efficiency of routine imaging compared with in-hospital observation and selective imaging is not well studied.MethodsThe proportions of negative appendectomy and treatments for appendicitis are studied in 1068 patients with intermediate suspicion of appendicitis, indicated by an Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score sum of five to eight points, randomly allocated by opaque sealed envelopes to early routine diagnostic imaging (Imaging group, n=543) or re-assessment after 4–8 hours inhospital observation followed by selective diagnostic imaging (Observation group, n=525). Some 21 hospitals in Sweden participated in this multicentre study.FindingsThe Imaging and Observation groups had the same proportion of negative appendectomies (6·5% in both, difference 0·03%, CI –3·0%–3·1%, p=0·98) but routine imaging was associated with an increased proportion of patients treated for appendicitis (53·4% vs 46·3%, difference 7·1%, CI 1·0–13·2%, p=0·020). As secondary outcomes, the Imaging group had shorter time to surgery (median 13·7 hours vs 15·5 hours, p<0·01), but no difference in admissions, number of perforations or length of hospital stay.InterpretationPatients with suspected appendicitis and equivocal clinical findings do not benefit from early routine diagnostic imaging compared with re-assessment after observation and selective imaging. The latter is associated with fewer operations for non-perforated appendicitis which supports the hypothesis of resolving appendicitis.
|
|
| 6. |
- Andersson, Manne
(author)
-
Structured management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis
- 2015
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Background. Acute appendicitis (“appendicitis”) is one of the most common abdominal surgical emergencies worldwide. In spite of this, the diagnostic pathways are highly variable across countries, between centres and physicians. This has implications for the use of resources, exposure of patients to ionising radiation and patient outcome. The aim of this thesis is to construct and validate a diagnostic appendicitis score, to evaluate new inflammatory markers for inclusion in the score, and explore the effect of implementing a structured management algorithm for patients with suspected appendicitis. Also, we compare the outcome of management with routine diagnostic imaging versus observation and selective imaging in equivocal cases.Methods. In study I, the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score was constructed from eight variables with independent diagnostic value (right lower quadrant pain, rebound tenderness or muscular defence, WBC count, proportion of polymorphonuclear granulocytes, CRP, body temperature and vomiting). Its diagnostic properties were evaluated and compared with the Alvarado score. In study II, we performed an external validation and evaluation of novel inflammatory markers for inclusion in the score on patients with suspected appendicitis at two Swedish hospitals. In study III we externally validated and evaluated the impact of an AIR-scorebased algorithm assigning patients to a low or high risk of having appendicitis in an interventional multicentre study involving 25 Swedish hospitals and 3791 patients. In study IV, we compared the efficiency of routine diagnostic imaging with repeated clinical assessment followed by selective imaging in a randomised trial of 1028 patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis, as indicated by an intermediate AIR score, from study III.Main results. In study I we found that the AIR score could assign 63% of the patients to either a high- or low-risk group of appendicitis with an accuracy of 97%, which compared favourably with the Alvarado score. In study II, the diagnostic properties of the AIR score proved to be reproducible, but the inclusion of novel inflammatory markers did not improve the diagnostic accuracy. In study III, the AIR-score-based algorithm led to a reduction in negative explorations, operations for nonperforated appendicitis and hospital admissions in the low-risk group and reduced use of imaging in both low- and high-risk groups. In study IV, routine imaging led to more operations for nonperforated appendicitis but had no effect on negative explorations or perforated appendicitis.Conclusions. The AIR score was found to have promising diagnostic properties that were not improved further with the inclusion of novel inflammatory variables. Structured management of patients with suspected appendicitis according to an AIR-score-based algorithm may improve outcome while reducing hospital admissions and use of imaging. Patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis do not benefit from routine imaging which may lead to an increased detection of, and treatment for, uncomplicated cases of appendicitis that are otherwise allowed to resolve spontaneously.
|
|
| 7. |
- Andersson, Manne, et al.
(author)
-
Structured Management of Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis Using a Clinical Score and Selective Imaging (STRAPPSCORE)
- 2015
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- BackgroundThe management of patients with suspected appendicitis is highly variable with implications for the rate of diagnostic errors, unnecessary admissions and resource consumption. We hypothesise that a structured management algorithm based on the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score can improve diagnostic accuracy, limit the use of diagnostic imaging, and reduce the number of hospital admissions for patients with suspected appendicitis.MethodsProspective interventional multicentre study. Patients at 25 Swedish hospitals over the age of five, presenting with suspected appendicitis at the emergency department were considered for inclusion. After an initial period of routine management and registration of the AIR score parameters (baseline period), an AIR-score-based management algorithm was implemented (intervention period). The study analyses the discriminating capacity and predictive value of the AIR score and the impact of implementing the AIR-score-based algorithm.ResultsIn total, 3791 patients were included. Advanced appendicitis is unlikely at an AIR score <5 points (sensitivity 0.96), and appendicitis is likely at an AIR score >8 (specificity 0.98). The implementation of the AIR-score-based algorithm resulted in fewer negative explorations and operations for phlegmonous appendicitis (1.6% vs 3.4%, p=0.019 and 5.5% vs 9.4%, p=0.003, respectively), a reduction in admissions to hospital and use of imaging (29.5% vs 42.8%, p<0.001 and 19.2% vs 34.5%, respectively), and no difference with regard to advanced appendicitis in the low-risk group, and a decrease in the use of diagnostic imaging in the high-risk group (38.5% vs 53.1%, p=0.021).ConclusionsThe AIR score has high discriminating capacity. Implementing an AIR-score-based algorithm increased diagnostic accuracy and lowered the use of diagnostic imaging and in-hospital observation.
|
|
| 8. |
- Andersson, Manne, et al.
(author)
-
Validation of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) Score
- 2021
-
In: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 45:7, s. 2081-2091
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Patients with suspicion of appendicitis present with a wide range of severity. Score-based risk stratification can optimise the management of these patients. This prospective study validates the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score in patients with suspicion of appendicitis. Method Consecutive patients over the age of five with suspicion of appendicitis presenting at 25 Swedish hospitals emergency departments were prospectively included. The diagnostic properties of the AIR score are estimated. Results Some 3878 patients were included, 821 with uncomplicated and 724 with complicated appendicitis, 1986 with non-specific abdominal pain and 347 with other diagnoses. The score performed better in detecting complicated appendicitis (ROC area 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.90) versus 0.83 (CI 0.82-0.84) for any appendicitis, p < 0.001), in patients below age 15 years and in patients with >47 h duration of symptoms (ROC area 0.93, CI 0.90-0.95 for complicated and 0.87, CI 0.84-0.90 for any appendicitis in both categories). Complicated appendicitis is unlikely at AIR score <4 points (Negative Predictive Value 99%, CI 98-100%). Appendicitis is likely at AIR score >8 points, especially in young patients (positive predictive value (PPV) 96%, CI 90-100%) and men (PPV 89%, CI 84-93%). Conclusions The AIR score has high sensitivity for complicated appendicitis and identifies subgroups with low probability of complicated appendicitis or high probability of appendicitis. The discriminating capacity is high in children and patients with long duration of symptoms. It performs equally well in both sexes. This verifies the AIR score as a valid decision support.
|
|
| 9. |
- Di Saverio, Salomone, et al.
(author)
-
WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis
- 2016
-
In: World Journal of Emergency Surgery. - : BIOMED CENTRAL LTD. - 1749-7922. ; 11:34
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.
|
|
| 10. |
- Dimberg, Jan, et al.
(author)
-
Genetic polymorphism patterns suggest a genetic driven inflammatory response as pathogenesis in appendicitis
- 2020
-
In: International Journal of Colorectal Disease. - : Springer. - 0179-1958 .- 1432-1262. ; 35, s. 277-284
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSE: The pathogenesis of appendicitis is not well understood. Environmental factors are regarded most important, but epidemiologic findings suggest a role of inflammatory and genetic mechanisms. This study determines the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of inflammatory genes with appendicitis.METHODS: As part of a larger prospective study on the diagnostic value of inflammatory variables in appendicitis, the genotype frequency of 28 polymorphisms in 26 inflammatory response genes from the appendicitis and control patients was analyzed in blood samples from 343 patients, 100 with appendicitis, and 243 with non-specific abdominal pain, using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays.RESULTS: Associations with appendicitis were found for SNPs IL-13 rs1800925 with odds ratio (OR) 6.02 (95% CI 1.52-23.78) for T/T versus C/C + T/T, for IL-17 rs2275913 with OR 2.38 (CI 1.24-4.57) for A/A vs G/G + GA, for CCL22 rs223888 with OR 0.12 (0.02-0.90), and for A/A vs G/G + GA. Signs of effect modification of age for the association with appendicitis were found for IL-13 rs1800925 and CTLA4 rs3087243. Stratified analysis showed difference in association with severity of disease for IL-17 rs2275913 and CD44 rs187115.CONCLUSIONS: The association of gene variants on risk of appendicitis and its severity suggest an etiologic role of genetically regulated inflammatory response. This may have implications for understanding the prognosis of untreated appendicitis as a possible self-limiting disorder and for understanding the inverse association of appendicitis with ulcerative colitis.
|
|
