A novel value-based scoring system for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a single-centre comparative study of plastic and lumen-apposing metal stents (NOVA study).

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare resources are finite. Value in healthcare can be defined as patient health outcomes achieved per monetary unit spent. Attempts have been made to quantify the value of luminal endoscopy, but there is little in the medical literature describing the value of the complex therapeutic endoscopic activity. This study aimed to characterise the value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) with either plastic or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs). METHODS: This is a single-centre, retrospective-prospective comparative study of 39 patients, who underwent EUS-guided PFC drainage between 2009 and 2018. Procedure value was calculated using the formula Q/(T/C), where Q is the quality of procedure adjusted for complications, T procedure duration and C is the complexity adjustment. Quality and complexity were estimated on a 1-4 Likert scale based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. Time (in minutes) was recorded from the patient entering and leaving the procedure room. Endoscopy time calculated from procedure time was considered a surrogate marker of cost as individual components of procedure cost were not itemized. RESULTS: Of 39 identified patients who underwent EUS-guided PFC drainage, 11 received double pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs) and 28 received LAMSs. The two groups were comparable in age, gender and aetiology. Nearly 40% of the LAMS interventions were considered high value but only 11% of the plastic stent interventions achieved the same. The difference predominantly was due to a higher rate of complications and longer procedure time. CONCLUSION: In this single-centre study, EUS-guided PFC drainage using LAMS was found to be a higher value procedure compared to the use of DPPS.

Evaluation Of Modified Alvarado, Ripasa And Lintula Scoring System As Diagnostic Tools For Acute Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Commonest surgical emergency presenting to emergency departments with abdominal pain is acute appendicitis. Thus, to enable quick and accurate diagnosis of the condition various scoring systems have been developed. Among these, Alvarado and its modified version (Modified Alvarado) are the commonest. Whereas Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score showed promising results in Asian population. Similarly, Lintula score, which was initially developed for paediatric population, has now been validated for elderly too. This study is aimed to compare these in our regional population. METHODS: Project included consecutive 125 clinically suspected acute appendicitis patients. All were scored using Modified Alvarado, RIPASA and Lintula systems. Final diagnosis was based on histopathologic evaluation of excised specimen. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy were computed for all these systems by using SPSS statistical software and ROC curves were plotted. RESULTS: With cut-off of 7, Modified Alvarado was 62% specific, 83% sensitive and 65% accurate. While PPV and NPV were 94% and 33%, respectively. Whereas RIPASA yielded better results, i.e., sensitivity of 98.4%, specificity of 87%, PPV of 97%, NPV of 77% and diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Whereas Lintula showed sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 87%, PPV of 96%, NPV of 40 and accuracy of 73%. CONCLUSIONS: RIPASA demonstrated higher sensitivity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy than Modified Alvarado and Lintula scores. Hence this study approves use of RIPASA score in the region. However further research on the subject is required to back this inference.