Second Bout of Appendicitis Treated With Antibiotics Again

• Periodical List
• JAMA Network
• PMC6233612

JAMA. 2018 Sep 25; 320(12): 1259–1265.

5-Year Follow-up of Antibody Therapy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis in the APPAC Randomized Clinical Trial

Paulina Salminen, Doc, PhD, ^{1, 2} Risto Tuominen, MPH, PhD,^{3, four, 5} Hannu Paajanen, Doc, PhD,^vi Tero Rautio, MD, PhD,^seven Pia Nordström, MD, PhD,⁸ Markku Aarnio, Doctor, PhD,⁹ Tuomo Rantanen, Physician, PhD,^{ten, 11, 12} Saija Hurme, MSc,^thirteen Jukka-Pekka Mecklin, Doctor, PhD,^{14, xv} Juhani Sand, MD, PhD,^xvi Johanna Virtanen, Doc, PhD,¹⁷ Airi Jartti, MD, PhD,¹⁸ and Juha M. Grönroos, MD, PhD^{1, 2}

Paulina Salminen

ⁱDivision of Digestive Surgery and Urology, Department of Digestive Surgery, Turku Academy Hospital, Academy of Turku, Turku, Finland

^twoDepartment of Surgery, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Risto Tuominen

³Department of Public Health, Academy of Turku, Turku, Finland

⁴Primary Wellness Intendance Unit, Hospital District of Southwest Finland, Turku, Finland

⁵University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia

Hannu Paajanen

⁶Department of Surgery, Mikkeli Central Hospital, Mikkeli, Finland

Tero Rautio

^sevenDepartment of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland

Pia Nordström

⁸Division of Surgery, Gastroenterology, and Oncology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland

Markku Aarnio

⁹Department of Surgery, Jyväskylä Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Republic of finland

Tuomo Rantanen

^tenDepartment of Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Republic of finland

¹¹Institute of Clinical Medicine, Academy of Eastern Republic of finland, Kuopio, Finland

¹²Department of Surgery, Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Seinäjoki, Finland

Saija Hurme

¹³Department of Biostatistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Jukka-Pekka Mecklin

¹⁴Department of Surgery, Cardinal Hospital of Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Republic of finland

¹⁵Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Jyväskylä University, Jyväskylä, Finland

Juhani Sand

^xviDepartment of Health and Medical Services, Päijät-Häme Joint Authorisation for Wellness and Wellbeing, Lahti, Finland

Johanna Virtanen

¹⁷Section of Radiology, Turku University Infirmary, Turku, Finland

Airi Jartti

^eighteenDepartment of Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Republic of finland

Juha M. Grönroos

¹Division of Digestive Surgery and Urology, Department of Digestive Surgery, Turku University Infirmary, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

²Department of Surgery, Academy of Turku, Turku, Finland

Received 2017 December 27; Accustomed 2018 Aug 16.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement 1: Trial Statistical Analysis Plan and Study Protocol

GUID: 1424EA90-925F-43D8-AD4E-0A1D006D167C

Supplement 2: Data Sharing Statement

GUID: 5D378928-071E-4717-BA42-1F86E8858949

Key Points

Question

What is the long-term recurrence rate in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis treated with antibiotics?

Findings

In this 5-twelvemonth observational follow-upwards of 257 patients initially treated with antibiotics for uncomplicated acute appendicitis, the cumulative incidence of recurrent appendicitis at 1, 2, iii, four, and 5 years was 27.3% at i twelvemonth, 34.0% at 2, 35.two% at 3, 37.1% at 4, and 39.1% at 5 years.

Meaning

Long-term follow up of patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis suggests that initial treatment with antibiotics rather than surgery may be a feasible culling.

Abstract

Importance

Brusk-term results support antibiotics as an alternative to surgery for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis, but long-term outcomes are not known.

Objective

To determine the tardily recurrence rate of appendicitis after antibody therapy for the treatment of uncomplicated astute appendicitis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Five-year observational follow-up of patients in the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter randomized clinical trial comparison appendectomy with antibody therapy, in which 530 patients aged 18 to 60 years with computed tomography–confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis were randomized to undergo an appendectomy (n = 273) or receive antibiotic therapy (northward = 257). The initial trial was conducted from November 2009 to June 2012 in Republic of finland; last follow-upwards was September 6, 2017. This current analysis focused on assessing the 5-year outcomes for the group of patients treated with antibiotics alone.

Interventions

Open appendectomy vs antibiotic therapy with intravenous ertapenem for 3 days followed by 7 days of oral levofloxacin and metronidazole.

Main Outcomes and Measures

In this analysis, prespecified secondary end points reported at v-year follow-up included late (later on 1 year) appendicitis recurrence after antibody treatment, complications, length of hospital stay, and sick leave.

Results

Of the 530 patients (201 women; 329 men) enrolled in the trial, 273 patients (median age, 35 years [IQR, 27-46]) were randomized to undergo appendectomy, and 257 (median historic period, 33 years, [IQR, 26-47]) were randomized to receive antibiotic therapy. In addition to 70 patients who initially received antibiotics but underwent appendectomy inside the get-go year (27.iii% [95% CI, 22.0%-33.2%]; 70/256), 30 additional antibody-treated patients (sixteen.1% [95% CI, xi.2%-22.2%]; xxx/186) underwent appendectomy betwixt one and 5 years. The cumulative incidence of appendicitis recurrence was 34.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-40.i%; 87/256) at 2 years, 35.2% (95% CI, 29.3%-41.iv%; 90/256) at 3 years, 37.1% (95% CI, 31.two%-43.iii%; 95/256) at 4 years, and 39.1% (95% CI, 33.i%-45.3%; 100/256) at 5 years. Of the 85 patients in the antibiotic group who subsequently underwent appendectomy for recurrent appendicitis, 76 had unproblematic appendicitis, two had complicated appendicitis, and 7 did not take appendicitis. At 5 years, the overall complication rate (surgical site infections, incisional hernias, abdominal pain, and obstructive symptoms) was 24.four% (95% CI, xix.2%-xxx.3%) (n = 60/246) in the appendectomy grouping and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.8%-10.four%) (north = 16/246) in antibody group (P < .001), which calculates to 17.9 pct points (95% CI, 11.7-24.1) higher after surgery. In that location was no divergence betwixt groups for length of hospital stay, but at that place was a meaning difference in sick leave (11 days more for the appendectomy grouping).

Conclusions and Relevance

Amid patients who were initially treated with antibiotics for simple acute appendicitis, the likelihood of tardily recurrence within five years was 39.one%. This long-term follow-upward supports the feasibility of antibody treatment alone as an alternative to surgery for uncomplicated astute appendicitis.

Introduction

In order to avoid the complications of perforation and pelvic sepsis, appendectomy has been the standard treatment for all cases of acute appendicitis for over a century.^ane More recently, improvements in diagnostic imaging and antibiotics take facilitated a more selective approach. Abdominal computed tomography (CT) imaging very reliably establishes a diagnosis of appendicitis and can determine if the illness is complicated or unproblematic. Better preoperative diagnostic capabilities enabled trials of antibiotics to treat appendicitis without surgery. Several contempo randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the feasibility of antibiotic-simply handling for appendicitis.^two,3,four All these trials had relatively brusque and, for some, incomplete follow-upward of the patients receiving antibiotic handling.

Nosotros conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing antibiotic treatment with appendectomy for patients with CT-confirmed acute uncomplicated appendicitis with 1-year follow up.ⁱⁱⁱ With most complete follow-up of all patients enrolled in the trial, we found that 73% of all patients with appendicitis treated with antibiotics alone did not require surgery at 1 year. However, appendicitis could accept recurred in those patients, then the of import unanswered question is what were the long-term outcomes for these patients? This study reports the 5-year outcomes for all the patients enrolled in the original Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) trial.

Methods

Trial Design, Participants, and Interventions

The written report design, rationale, and methods for the initial APPAC trial take been previously reported (Supplement 1).^3,5 The complete report protocol⁵ was approved by the ethics committees of the 6 participating hospitals (Turku, Oulu, and Tampere university hospitals and Jyväskylä, Mikkeli, and Seinäjoki fundamental hospitals), and all patients gave written informed consent to participate in the study.

Briefly, the initial APPAC trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical noninferiority trial conducted from November 2009 to June 2012 in Finland involving 530 patients aged 18 to lx years with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Following CT confirmation for the presence of uncomplicated acute appendicitis, patients were randomized to receive either appendectomy or antibiotic handling with intravenous ertapenem sodium (1 g/d) for iii days, followed by seven days of oral levofloxacin (500 mg once daily) and metronidazole (500 mg three times/d). CT criteria for astute appendicitis included appendiceal diameter exceeding 6 mm with wall thickening accompanied with at least i of the following features: abnormal contrast enhancement of the appendiceal wall, inflammatory edema, or fluid collections effectually the appendix. Exclusion criteria included complicated acute appendicitis (defined as the presence of an appendicolith, perforation, abscess, or suspicion of a tumor on the CT browse), historic period younger than 18 years or older than 60 years, contraindications for CT, peritonitis, inability to adhere with handling and provide informed consent, and the presence of serious systemic affliction. Following the initial randomization, patients in the antibiotic grouping were followed up past surgeons who could apply their clinical judgement to pursue appendectomy if considered necessary. Most of the treating surgeons were non office of the core study team and provided intendance as they would in their normal clinical exercise. If the surgeons on call suspected progressive infection, perforated appendicitis, or peritonitis in a patient in the antibiotic group, the decision to perform appendectomy was left to their discretion with no prespecified criteria established to guide that decision. The last follow-up engagement for the current 5-twelvemonth report was September half-dozen, 2017.

Objective

The objective for the long-term follow-upward study was to determine the tardily recurrence rate of appendicitis later initial treatment with antibody therapy. Late complications occurring in both study groups were also assessed.

Randomization

Patients were randomized past a closed envelope method either to undergo appendectomy or receive antibiotic therapy. The randomization was performed with one:1 equal allocation ratio.

Long-term Follow-upward

Afterwards the initial 1-year follow-up, patient outcomes were assessed by telephone interviews conducted three to 5 years subsequently the intervention. Patients were asked near recurrent appendicitis later on antibody therapy or postoperative complications if tanahey underwent appendectomy. Upon written report enrollment, patients were instructed to contact the research hospital if they experienced whatsoever bug. For patients who could non be reached for follow-upwards by phone or clinic visit, a search of electronic hospital records in each inquiry hospital district was performed to retrieve data about possible appendectomy in the antibiotic grouping or other additional intervention-associated visits to the hospital or hospitalizations in both study groups.

Effect Measures

The primary terminate point of the original APPAC study was handling success predefined to be assessed at one-year follow-up.^3,v Success for the appendectomy group was defined equally a patient successfully undergoing an appendectomy. In the antibiotic group, treatment efficacy was defined as resolution of astute appendicitis resulting in discharge from the infirmary without the need for surgical intervention and no recurrent appendicitis during a minimum follow-upward of 1 year.

The predefined secondary end points at 3, five and ten years included tardily recurrence (after one twelvemonth) of acute appendicitis after antibiotic treatment, overall postintervention complications (surgical site infections, incisional hernias, abdominal or incisional hurting, or obstructive symptoms), length of infirmary stay (both primary hospitalization and all additional hospital stays), the amount of sick leave (both primary recovery period and all additional appendicitis treatment–associated ill go out days), postintervention pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS] score range, 0-10 [0 indicates no pain; 10 indicates the worst possible hurting]), and treatment costs.⁵ Cost data are not reported in this article. Recurrent appendicitis was diagnosed on a clinical basis as determined by the treating surgeon without any protocol-required repeat imaging or predefined clinical criteria for making the decision to proceed with appendectomy. Patients initially treated with antibiotics who subsequently underwent appendectomy had the preoperative diagnosis of appendicitis evaluated by surgical and histopathological exam of the resected specimen. Complications included all adverse events that occurred during the unabridged five-year follow-upward period. Postintervention complications included agin events such as incisional hernias, possible adhesion-related problems, persistent intestinal or incisional hurting, or wound infection (surgical site infection <30 days).

Statistical Analysis

Sample size calculations for APPAC were reported previously.³ Chiselled variables were described using frequencies and percentages with 95% CIs, continuous variables as means with 95% CIs or if the data were skewed, equally medians with 95% CIs and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Statistical significance for categorical information was tested using the Pearson χ² test. Departure between groups in length of hospital stay and sick leave was tested using Mann-Whitney U test. An additional Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the time of recurrence of all patients in the antibiotic group who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis recurrence. A log-rank test was used to test the differences between the VAS pain score categories at 2 months. Boosted post hoc analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to evaluate possible prognostic factors for recurrence of appendicitis in antibody group. Bivariable analyses were performed for age, sex, C-reactive protein, leukocytes, and VAS pain scores, and because there was only 1 statistically pregnant predictor, no farther multivariable analyses were conducted. Proportional hazards assumptions were evaluated using the Schoenfeld residuals and assumption was valid in all of the analyses. The main analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Two-sided P values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically meaning. Missing data were excluded from the analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS System for Windows (Version ix.4, SAS Establish Inc) (see the original statistical analysis plan in Supplement 1).

Results

Figure ane shows the trial profile. The baseline characteristics of the trial patients were shown in the report of main findings for this trial.³ Baseline demographic characteristics between the study groups were similar. Of the 530 patients (201 women; 329 men) enrolled in the trial, 273 patients (median age, 35 years [IQR, 27-46]) were randomized to undergo appendectomy, and 257 (median age, 33 years, [IQR, 26-47]) were randomized to receive antibiotic therapy. There were 3 deaths unrelated to intervention, of which two were in the appendectomy group. The 3 patients who died were included in the primary issue analysis because they underwent the allocated intervention, leaving 272 patients in the surgery group and 256 patients in the antibiotic group available for the chief issue analysis at five-year follow-upwardly. Figure 2 shows the cumulative incidence of acute appendicitis recurrence in the antibiotic group. At 1-yr follow-upwardly, the cumulative incidence of recurrence was 27.iii% (95% CI, 22.0%-33.ii%; seventy/256).³ The cumulative incidence of recurrence at ii, 3, iv, and 5 years was 34.0% (95% CI, 28.ii%-forty.1%; 87/256) at 2 years, 35.2% (95% CI, 29.3%-41.four%; 90/256) at 3 years, 37.1% (95% CI, 31.2%-43.three%; 95/256) at 4 years, and 39.one% (95% CI, 33.1%-45.3%; 100/256) at 5 years (Figure 2).

Patient Flow in the Appendicitia Acuta (APPAC) Trial at five-Year Follow-upward

^aIncludes appendicolith, perforation, abscess, or suspicion of tumor.

^bSee Salminen et al.³

^cIncludes all adverse events during the entire follow-up menses (variable yes/no for complications), ie, patients with a possible complication at previous follow-up are included in the v-yr assay even if they were non reached past phone (i patient in the appendectomy group and ten patients in the antibiotic group).

Kaplan-Meier Graph for Time to Recurrence After Antibiotic Therapy at v-Year Follow-upwards

There were 256 antibiotic group patients available (one death excluded) for assessment of appendicitis recurrence. Of these, fifteen underwent appendectomy during the primary hospitalization (ie, nonresponders to antibiotic therapy: 7/15 had complicated acute appendicitis, and 8/15 had unproblematic astute appendicitis at surgery and histopathology). Of the 85 patients who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis recurrence, 78 had a truthful recurrence (76 with uncomplicated and two with complicated acute appendicitis) and vii patients did not take appendicitis at histopathology.

In the first year following randomization, lxx patients in the antibody group underwent appendectomy. In all subsequent years, thirty more patients in the antibiotic group (16.1%; 95% CI, 11.2%-22.2%; 30/186) had an appendectomy. Of the 100 patients in the antibiotic grouping who underwent appendectomy during the entire grade of this written report, 15 were operated on during the initial hospitalization.³ Of the 85 antibiotic group patients who underwent appendectomy later on discharge from the study admission, 76 (50 ≤ 1 yr and 26 > 1 year) were found to accept had uncomplicated appendicitis when the specimen was examined pathologically. Complicated appendicitis was not found in any patient operated on during the first year of the study but was found in two patients in years 2 through v post-obit the index access for this study. No appendicitis was found in seven patients, 5 of these during the first year of the study and two during the longer follow-upward flow, resulting in truthful recurrence rate of 32.4% (78 true recurrences afterward initial hospitalization out of 241 patients in the antibiotic grouping with initial successful handling). Among patients in the antibiotic grouping, 1 was operated on during the long-term follow-up period outside of the country and did non have histopathology available. This patient was causeless to have uncomplicated appendicitis because the patient reported having an uneventful recovery following the functioning.

There were no appendiceal tumors in the 30 patients in the antibiotic grouping who underwent appendectomy between years i and 5; at the 1-year follow-upwardly,³ 4 patients (i.5%, 95% CI, 0.4%-3.7%; 4/272) in the surgical group were found to have an appendiceal tumor (one polyp and iii neuroendocrine tumors). The merely statistically significant prognostic factor for acute appendicitis recurrence was VAS hurting score at two months (adventure ratio for pain vs no pain, 3.2 [95% CI, i.six-6.5]; P = .001). The VAS pain score at 2 months (pain vs no pain) association to appendicitis recurrence is also presented using a Kaplan-Meier bend (Figure iii).

Kaplan-Meier Graph for Time to Recurrence Associated With Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Score at five-Year Follow-up

The scarlet ticks represent the patients with false-positive surgery after 2-month follow-up (n = 4) (ie, no appendicitis at surgery or histology). Shading effectually lines indicates 95% CI; n = 212 at 0 months. There were 226 patients in the antibody group who had non undergone appendectomy, and VAS at 2 months was bachelor for 212 of these patients (log-rank P < .001).

At 5 years, the overall complication rate of 24.4% (95% CI, nineteen.2%-30.three%; northward = 60/246) in the appendectomy group was significantly higher than the overall complication charge per unit of 6.5% (95% CI, iii.8%-10.iv%; n = 16/246) in antibody group (divergence, 17.9 percentage points [95% CI, xi.seven-24.1]; P < .001; Tabular array). There were merely 2 patients in the appendectomy group with a severe complication requiring a reoperation under full general anesthesia (one hernioplasty and i laparoscopic adhesiolysis); all other patients in both study groups had less-astringent complications (58/246 in the appendectomy group and 16/246 in the antibiotic group). Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed on 28 (7.5% [95% CI, five.ane%-10.7%]; 28/372) patients in the study (fifteen [4.three%]; 15/342 patients during the kickoff year and additional 13 [43.three%]; 13/thirty patients between years 1 and 5. When comparison the overall complexity rate of patients undergoing appendectomy in both written report groups, at that place was no statistically significant departure between surgically treated patients in the antibiotic grouping patients vs those who were randomized to the appendectomy group (overall appendectomy complexity rate, 17.8% [95% CI, 10.5%-27.iii%]; northward = 16/90) (difference, vi.6 percentage points [95% CI, −2.9-16.2]; P = .20). The median length of hospital stay was three days (95% CI, iii-3) in the appendectomy group and three days (95% CI, 3-3) in the antibody group (in that location was no deviation, 0 days). The median time used for sick exit was 22 days (95% CI, nineteen-23) afterward appendectomy and 11 days (95% CI, 11-12) later antibody therapy (P < .001; difference, eleven days).

Table.

Complications in the Operative and Antibiotic Therapy Handling Groups at 1 Year and v Years

	Time of Event Assessment, y	Surgical Group		Antibiotic Group		Departure		P Valuea
		No.	% (95% CI)	No.	% (95% CI)	No.	% (95% CI)
Overall complication rate	1	45b	twenty.5 (xv.3-26.iv)	half dozenb	two.viii (1.0-half dozen.0)	39	17.7 (11.9-23.4)	<.001
	5	threescoreb , c	24.four (19.2-30.iii)	sixteenb , c	6.5 (3.viii-10.iv)	44	17.ix (11.seven-24.1)	<.001
Surgical site infections	i and five	24		1		23		<.001
Organ space	1 and five	1		0		1
Deep incisional	1 and 5	four		0		4
Superficial	1 and 5	19		i		18
Incisional hernias	1	twod		0		2		.16
	5	2		3e		−1		>.99
Abdominal or incisional hurting or obstructive symptomsm	1	23f		4		19		<.001
	5	38		13		25		<.001

Discussion

In this report of nonoperative handling of appendicitis, 100 of the 256 patients in the antibiotic group (39.1%) ultimately underwent appendectomy after 5 years of follow-upwards. Nigh of these patients (70/100, lxx%) had their episode of recurrent appendicitis within i yr of initial presentation. No patient initially treated with antibiotics, who ultimately developed recurrent appendicitis, had any complications related to the filibuster in surgery. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of treating appendicitis with antibiotics and without surgery. Almost 2/3 of all patients who initially presented with uncomplicated appendicitis were successfully treated with antibiotics lonely and those who ultimately developed recurrent affliction did not feel whatsoever agin outcomes related to the delay in appendectomy.

Of the 100 patients who underwent appendectomy, 7 did not really have appendicitis. If surgery could have been avoided in these patients, the success rate for antibody handling of appendicitis would have been 163/256 (63.7%). At the time the study was initiated, antibiotic treatment for appendicitis was not considered an acceptable treatment for the disease. In order to conduct this study, the surgeons providing treat the report patients had the discretion to treat them using their clinical judgment rather than follow any protocol for deciding when to perform an appendectomy for patients in the antibiotic treatment group. This led to some patients undergoing appendectomy who did not have appendicitis or who might have been successfully treated with antibiotics or another course of antibiotics. Future studies should investigate protocols for further imaging or antibiotic treatment for patients who develop recurrent appendicitis after they were initially treated with antibiotics.

Previous studies of antibiotic treatment of appendicitis had varying approaches to establishing the diagnosis, differences in report eligibility, and the treatments administered. Some of the trials established a diagnosis by clinical means only.^6,7 Results from these trials may differ from the APPAC trial considering of the meliorate diagnostic accuracy bachelor past CT scan as was performed in APPAC. Vons et al,⁴ randomly assigned 119 patients to surgery and 122 to receive amoxicillin and clavulanic acrid afterwards the diagnosis of appendicitis was made by CT scan. This report differed from APPAC by including patients with complicated appendicitis and those having appendicoliths. Also, the antibiotic used in the Vons study⁴ was suboptimal for the treatment of serious intraabdominal infection. Thus, APPAC is not directly comparable to prior studies of antibody handling of appendicitis,^{2,four,8,nine,10,xi} but is more reflective of gimmicky approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

Prior studies of antibody treatment of appendicitis accept found an association between appendicolith and appendicitis recurrence.^4,12 Because of this association, patients assessed for eligibility in the APPAC trial were excluded if CT imaging showed an appendicolith. Prior studies regarding appendicolith were not powered to definitively establish the relationship between appendicoliths and appendicitis recurrence when appendicitis is treated with antibiotics. This warrants further written report.

Appendectomy has a reasonably low complication rate. APPAC was not powered to study complications of either appendectomy or antibiotic treatment. There was a college complexity rate for appendectomy, by and large from infection. These complications could be reduced past adopting a laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic appendectomy has a very low complication rate and is associated with rapid render to normal function.^xiii Although commonly performed in the U.s., laparoscopic surgery requires substantial investment in equipment and supplies that are not available in much of the world. Thus, the complexity rates we observed for open up appendectomy may exist like to those expected for regions where open appendectomy might be the standard arroyo. Given the lower complication rate in the antibiotic grouping, it might be considered a preferable approach for the initial treatment of appendicitis in resource-limited settings.

The success of antibiotic treatment for appendicitis calls into question prior beliefs that appendicitis inevitably results in serious intraabdominal infection if appendectomy is not performed. In fact, when appendicitis was outset described, its existence was supported, in part, by observation in autopsy studies that appendicitis could spontaneously resolve.^1,14 That appendicitis can resolve with no handling was recently shown in a randomized trial by Park et al,¹⁵ in which 121 patients with acute CT-confirmed uncomplicated appendicitis received a four-day form of antibiotic treatment with cefmetazole and metronidazole compared with a group of 124 patients who were observed with no antibiotics or surgery. After a median follow-up time of 19 months, 25/121 (20.7%) of the antibody-treated and 29/124 (23.4%) of the observation-only patients required subsequent appendectomy.¹⁵ These data show that elementary appendicitis can resolve with no specific handling, further calling into question the need for appendectomy when uncomplicated CT-diagnosed appendicitis first presents. These results showing spontaneous resolution of unproblematic acute appendicitis should be verified past a double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trial, but only supportive care may too be a valid futurity treatment option.

The strengths of this study include enrollment of a large number of patients at several different medical centers; many different surgeons providing intendance as they would irrespective of the study; and long-term, 5-year, nearly complete follow-up. These characteristics enhance the likelihood that the study results are generalizable to routine surgical exercise. In improver, by effectively excluding the patients with complicated astute appendicitis (assessed using CT), this study population consisted of truthful elementary acute appendicitis patients as only i.v% (4/273) of patients in the appendectomy group and 2.8% (7/253) of patients in the antibiotic grouping presented with a complicated acute appendicitis at initial trial intervention.

Limitations

This written report has several limitations. Beginning, we did not have a protocol guiding decision making regarding performance of an appendectomy following randomization. The decision for surgery was left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. Feasibly, this resulted in more than appendectomies than were admittedly necessary since some of the surgeons were not convinced that antibiotics were adequate treatment for appendicitis (ie, during the primary hospitalization, 8 of the 15 patients evaluated to be nonresponders to antibiotics had an operative finding of uncomplicated acute appendicitis). In improver, 7 of the 85 appendectomies performed for a clinical diagnosis of recurrent appendicitis proved not to be appendicitis, suggesting an overly aggressive approach to surgery based on trial protocol of appendectomy for suspected recurrence.

The second limitation was the use of open rather than laparoscopic appendectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with shorter infirmary stay, faster return to normal activity, and fewer wound infections as compared with the open functioning.¹³ All the same, at the time this study was conducted, open operation was the standard arroyo, and in the Finnish wellness care system, laparoscopic appendectomy was only starting to proceeds popularity. Results of this study are still pertinent to resource-limited environments where laparoscopic surgery is non affordable. Also, the operative technique does not influence the major finding that appendicitis tin be successfully treated with antibiotics for nigh patients.

The third limitation is the median hospital stay of iii days for the antibiotic grouping. When this protocol was designed, at that place was little information available to guide the awarding of antibiotic treatment for appendicitis. We took a very bourgeois arroyo, using very broad-spectrum antibiotics while observing patients in the hospital for three days. Our findings show that antibiotic handling of appendicitis is feasible. Futurity studies should examine unlike antibiotic regimens and fewer days of hospital ascertainment.¹⁵ These factors can markedly reduce the infirmary stay and shorter hospital stays have been reported in the NOTA report (Non Operative Treatment for Astute Appendicitis; Di Saverio et al^sixteen), with a 0.4 days mean length of stay, and in a U.s.a. airplane pilot report by Talan et al,¹⁷ which demonstrated successful outpatient antibiotic management with total hospital fourth dimension of 16 hours.

Conclusions

Amongst patients who were initially treated with antibiotics for uncomplicated acute appendicitis, the likelihood of late recurrence within 5 years was 39.1%. This long-term follow-up supports the feasibility of antibiotic treatment alone equally an alternative to surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Notes

Supplement i.

Trial Statistical Assay Plan and Study Protocol

Supplement two.

Data Sharing Statement

References

1. Livingston E, Vons C. Treating appendicitis without surgery. JAMA. 2015;313(23):2327-2328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Huang L, Yin Y, Yang Fifty, Wang C, Li Y, Zhou Z. Comparison of antibiotic therapy and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(five):426-434. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

three. Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T, et al.. Antibiotic therapy vs appendectomy for handling of simple astute appendicitis. JAMA. 2015;313(23):2340-2348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S, et al.. Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of astute uncomplicated appendicitis. Lancet. 2011;377(9777):1573-1579. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Paajanen H, Grönroos JM, Rautio T, et al.. A prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in the treatment of simple acute appendicitis (APPAC trial). BMC Surg. 2013;xiii:iii. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Hansson J, Körner U, Khorram-Manesh A, Solberg A, Lundholm M. Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as chief treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Br J Surg. 2009;96(5):473-481. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

vii. Styrud J, Eriksson S, Nilsson I, et al.. Appendectomy versus antibiotic handling in astute appendicitis. a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2006;xxx(6):1033-1037. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Harnoss JC, Zelienka I, Probst P, et al.. Antibiotics versus surgical therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2017;265(v):889-900. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Rollins KE, Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN. Antibiotics versus appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Earth J Surg. 2016;40(10):2305-2318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Sallinen V, Akl EA, You JJ, et al.. Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for not-perforated acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2016;103(6):656-667. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Tanaka Y, Uchida H, Kawashima H, et al.. Long-term outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg. 2015;50(xi):1893-1897. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Shindoh J, Niwa H, Kawai K, et al.. Predictive factors for negative outcomes in initial non-operative management of suspected appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(2):309-314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Sauerland South, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD001546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Fitz R. Perforating inflammation of the vermiform appendix. Am J Med Sci. 1886;92:321-346. [Google Scholar]

15. Park HC, Kim MJ, Lee BH. Randomized clinical trial of antibody therapy for unproblematic appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2017;104(13):1785-1790. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Di Saverio S, Sibilio A, Giorgini Eastward, et al.. The NOTA study (Not Operative Treatment for Acute Appendicitis): prospective study on the efficacy and prophylactic of antibiotics (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for treating patients with right lower quadrant abdominal hurting and long-term follow-upwardly of conservatively treated suspected appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2014;260(1):109-117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Talan DA, Saltzman DJ, Mower WR et al.. Antibiotics-first versus surgery for appendicitis: a U.s. pilot randomized controlled trial allowing outpatient antibody management. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;lxx(1):1-11.e19. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

sharptherld1942.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6233612/

Share this post