A comparative study of the RIPASA and Alvarado scores in geriatric patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: While abdominal pain is one of the most prevalent reasons for seeking medical attention, diagnosing elderly adults with acute appendicitis (AA) may be difficult. In this study, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado ratings were evaluated for diagnostic accuracy in patients who reported to the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain and received surgery for AA. METHODS: The data of patients over the age of 65 years who reported to the ER and had appendectomy after being diagnosed with AA were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. For each patient, the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado and RIPASA scores was determined individually. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were included in the research. The average patient was 71.2 years old, with a male preponderance of 46.5%. Alvarado's score was found to have an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.799, the Youden's index of 0.549, and a p-value of 0.001 after a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study of the Alvarado score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. The AUC was 0.886 (95%CI 0.799-0.944), the Youden's index was 0.642, and a p-value of 0.001 was found in the ROC analysis of the RIPASA score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the two scores used to diagnose AA, we found no statistically significant difference between the RIPASA and Alvarado scores (p=0.09), although the Youden's index for the RIPASA score was higher.

Efectividad de la Escala RIPASA para el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda / Effectiveness of the RIPASA Score for the diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

RESUMEN Introducción: La apendicitis aguda es la primera causa de atención quirúrgica en los servicios de urgencias de adultos en prácticamente todo el mundo, y la apendicectomía se ha establecido como el estándar de oro del tratamiento. Objetivo: Evaluar la efectividad de la escala RIPASA para el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda. Métodos: Se desarrolló un estudio observacional-prospectivo de serie de casos en los pacientes con diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda a los que, se les aplicó la escala de RIPASA. Resultados: La escala de RIPASA presentó una efectividad del 90,38 por ciento de los casos estudiados con diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda. En la muestra obtenida, se encontraron 8 mujeres (5,13 por ciento) y 148 hombres (94,87 por ciento). Se evidenció una mayor representatividad en las edades entre 18 y 20 años. Conclusiones: Los sistemas clínicos de puntuación como, el usado en este estudio pueden ser una herramienta económica y de rápida aplicación en los servicios de urgencias para descartar la apendicitis aguda. Este sistema de puntuación es dinámico, lo que permite la observación y la reevaluación crítica de la evolución del cuadro clínico. Su aplicación mejora la precisión diagnóstica y, en consecuencia, reduce las apendicectomías negativas y la presentación de complicaciones(AU)

ABSTRACT Introduction: Acute appendicitis is the leading cause of surgical care in adult emergency services virtually worldwide. Appendectomy has been established as the gold standard of treatment. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the RIPASA score for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Methods: An observational-prospective study of case series was carried out in patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis and who were applied the RIPASA score. Results: The RIPASA score showed an effectiveness of 90.38 percent of the cases studied with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The sample obtained consisted of eight women (5.13 percent) and 148 men (94.87 percent). Greater representativeness was evident in the ages between 18 and 20 years. Conclusions: Clinical scoring systems, such as the one used in this study, can be an inexpensive tool to be applied quickly in the emergency department to rule out acute appendicitis. This scoring system is dynamic, allowing critical observation and reassessment of the natural history of the condition. Its application improves diagnostic precision and, consequently, reduces negative appendectomies, as well as the onset of complications(AU)

Clinical Relevance of Modified Alvarado Score in Acute Appendicitis in Present Scenario

Introduction: Appendix is surely, the most commonlyharvested organ of the body. On looking up the literature,we found, that the negative appendectomy rates have beenconsistently maintained all through these years. Negativeappendectomy not only increases economic burden on healthcare facilities of a developing country like India, but alsohas a negative impact on the overall health of the patient.The following study was therefore, taken up to evaluate thediagnostic accuracy of the Modified Alvarado scoring systemand its ultimate effect on mortality and morbidity of the patient.Though this is an old score, but we restudied it, to revalidateas well as to promote the use of this simple, economicaland objective clinical score which actually uses establishedclinical methods, important for residents training program, toreach the diagnosis instead of the costly radiological methods.Material and methods: 50 patients presenting with thelower quadrant abdominal pain and fulfilling the inclusioncriteria were selected randomly and included in the study.Modified Alvarado Score was calculated for each one ofthem. Confirmation of the diagnosis was done after thehistopathological examination of appendix.Results: Modified Alvarado Score >7 was found in 80% (i.e.82.75% of males and 76.19% of females) of patients withappendicitis. In addition to these findings, we also got exactinformation about the age and sex distribution along withthe most common presenting complaint, the postoperativecomplications and the need for post operative stay inappendicitis patients.Conclusion: Modified Alvarado Score is a fast, simple,noninvasive, repeatable and highly economical score. Whenapplied purposefully and objectively, it can prevent delayin surgeries and hence complications as well as can reducenegative appendectomies.

Evaluation of modified Alvarado scoring system and RIPASA scoring system as diagnostic tools of acute appendicitis / 世界急诊医学杂志（英文）

@#BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition presented in emergency departments worldwide. Clinical scoring systems, such as the Alvarado and modified Alvarado scoring systems, were developed with the goal of reducing the negative appendectomy rate to 5%–10%. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) scoring system was established in 2008 specifically for Asian populations. The aim of this study was to compare the modified Alvarado with the RIPASA scoring system in Kuwait population. METHODS: This study included 180 patients who underwent appendectomies and were documented as having "acute appendicitis" or "abdominal pain" in the operating theatre logbook (unit B) from November 2014 to March 2016. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy, predicted negative appendectomy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems were derived using SPSS statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in this study according to our criteria. The cut-off threshold point of the modified Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 82.8% and a specificity of 56%. The PPV was 89.3% and the NPV was 42.4%. The cut-off threshold point of the RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded a 94.5% sensitivity and an 88% specificity. The PPV was 97.2% and the NPV was 78.5%. The predicted negative appendectomy rates were 10.7% and 2.2% for the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems, respectively. The negative appendectomy rate decreased significantly, from 18.4% to 10.7% for the modified Alvarado, and to 2.2% for the RIPASA scoring system, which was a significant difference (P<0.001) for both scoring systems. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, the RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with better sensitivity and specificity than the modified Alvarado scoring system in Asian populations. It consists of 14 clinical parameters that can be obtained from a good patient history, clinical examination and laboratory investigations. The RIPASA scoring system is more accurate and specific than the modified Alvarado scoring system for Kuwait population.

Precisión diagnóstica de la escala RIPASA para el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda: análisis comparativo con la escala de Alvarado modificada / Diagnostic accuracy of the RIPASA Score for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparative analysis with the modified Alvarado Score

Objetivo: Evaluar en forma comparativa la escala de Alvarado modificada y la escala RIPASA, para conocer su utilidad en el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda en un hospital de tercer nivel de atención del sector salud. Sede: Hospital General de México. Diseño: Estudio prospectivo, transversal, comparativo y observacional. Análisis estadístico: Medidas de tendencia central, análisis para pruebas diagnósticas (sensibilidad, especificidad, valores predictivos, likelihood ratio o coeficiente de probabilidad) y curva ROC. Pacientes y métodos: De acuerdo al cálculo de tamaño de muestra se estudiaron 70 pacientes, que ingresaron al Servicio de Urgencias del Hospital General de México con síndrome doloroso abdominal sugestivo de apendicitis aguda, se les realizaron estudios de laboratorio y gabinete. Aplicando en forma simultánea las escalas de Alvarado modificada y la RIPASA. Se anotaron hallazgos clínicos, quirúrgicos e histopatológicos del apéndice. Resultados: La escala de Alvarado presentó una sensibilidad de 89.5% y especificidad de 69.2%, la RIPASA presentó una sensibilidad de 91.2% y especificidad de 84.6%. El área bajo la curva ROC de la escala RIPASA fue de 0.93, superior a la de Alvarado de 0.89. Si la decisión quirúrgica se hubiera realizado con base en la escala de Alvarado, las apendicectomías negativas se hubieran presentado en 18.3% pacientes, y con RIPASA disminuirían a 15.7%. Conclusiones: Ambas escalas presentaron buena sensibilidad para el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda. La escala RIPASA presentó mejor especificidad y valores predictivos, con menor probabilidad de apendicectomías negativas. La escala RIPASA presenta mayor exactitud diagnóstica que la de Alvarado.

Objective: To assess comparatively the Modified Alvarado and the RIPASA scores, to know their usefulness in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in a third level health care hospital. Setting: General Hospital of Mexico. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional, comparative, and observational study. Statistical analysis: Central Tendency Measures, analyses for diagnostic tests (specificity, sensitivity, predictive values, likelihood ratio) and ROC curve. Patients and methods: According to the established sample size, we studied 70 patients that were admitted at the Emergency Ward of the General Hospital of Mexico, with abdominal pain syndrome suggestive of acute appendicitis. Laboratory and imaging studies were performed. The modified Alvarado and RIPASA scores were applied simultaneously. Clinical, surgical, and histopathological findings were recorded. Results: The Alvarado score presented a sensitivity of 89.5% and a specificity of 69.2%, whereas RIPASA presented a sensitivity of 91.2% and specificity of 84.6%. The area under the ROC curve for the RIPASA score was 0.93, higher than that of the Alvarado with 0.89. If surgical decision had been based on the Alvarado score, negative appendicectomies would have been encountered in 18.3% of patients, and with RIPASA they would have diminished to 15.7%. Conclusions: Both scores presented a good sensitivity for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. RIPASA presented better specificity and predictive values, with a lower likelihood of negative appendicectomies. The RIPASA score had a better diagnostic accuracy than the Alvarado score.