Beyond high-risk: analysis of the outcomes of extreme-risk patients in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit.

Patients who require emergency laparotomy are defined as high risk if their 30-day predicted risk of mortality is ≥ 5%. Despite a large difference in the characteristics of patients with a mortality risk score of between 5% and 50%, these outcomes are aggregated by the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA). Our aim was to describe the outcomes of the cohort of patients at extreme risk of death, which we defined as having a NELA-predicted 30-day mortality of ≥ 50%. All patients enrolled in the NELA database between December 2012 and 2020 were included. We compared patient characteristics; length of hospital stay; rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre; and 90-day survival in extreme-risk groups (predicted ≥ 50%) and high-risk patients (predicted 5-49%). Of 161,337 patients, 5193 (3.2%) had a predicted mortality of ≥ 50%. When patients were further subdivided, 2437 (47%) had predicted mortality of 50-59% (group 50-59); 1484 (29%) predicted mortality of 60-69% (group 60-69); 840 (16%) predicted mortality of 70-79% (group 70-79); and 423 (8%) predicted mortality of ≥ 80% (group 80+). Extreme-risk patients were significantly more likely to have been admitted electively than high-risk patients (p < 0.001). Length of stay increased from a median (IQR [range]) of 26 (16-43 [0-271]) days in group 50-59 to 35 (21-56 [0-368]) days in group 80+, compared with 17 (10-30 [0-1136]) days for high-risk patients. Rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre were higher in extreme-risk groups compared with high-risk patients (11% vs. 8%). The 90-day survival was 43% in group 50-59, 34% in group 60-69, 27% in group 70-79 and 17% in group 80+. These data underscore the need for a differentiated approach when discussing risk with patients at extreme risk of mortality following an emergency laparotomy. Clinicians should focus on patient priorities on quantity and quality of life during informed consent discussions before surgery. Future work should extend beyond the immediate postoperative period to encompass the longer-term outcomes (survival and function) of patients who have emergency laparotomies.

Quantitative futility in emergency laparotomy: an exploration of early-postoperative death in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative futility is an appraisal of the risk of failure of a treatment. For those who do not survive, a laparotomy has provided negligible therapeutic benefit and may represent a missed opportunity for palliation. The aim of this study was to define a timeframe for quantitative futility in emergency laparotomy and investigate predictors of futility using the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database. METHODS: A two-stage methodology was used; stage one defined a timeframe for futility using an online survey and steering group discussion; stage two applied this definition to patients enrolled in NELA December 2013-December 2020 for analysis. Futility was defined as all-cause mortality within 3 days of emergency laparotomy. Baseline characteristics of this group were compared to all others. Multilevel logistic regression was carried out with potentially clinically important predictors defined a priori. RESULTS: Quantitative futility occurred in 4% of patients (7442/180,987). Median age was 74 years (range 65-81 years). Median NELA risk score was 32.4% vs. 3.8% in the surviving cohort (p < 0.001). Early mortality patients more frequently presented with sepsis (p < 0.001). Significant predictors of futility included age, arterial lactate and cardiorespiratory co-morbidity. Frailty was associated with a 38% increased risk of early mortality (95% CI 1.22-1.55). Surgery for intestinal ischaemia was associated with a two times greater chance of futile surgery (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.50-2.85). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative futility after emergency laparotomy is associated with quantifiable risk factors available to decision-makers preoperatively. These findings should be incorporated qualitatively by the multidisciplinary team into shared decision-making discussions with extremely high-risk patients.

Antibiotics as first-line alternative to appendicectomy in adult appendicitis: 90-day follow-up from a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be managed with non-operative (antibiotic) treatment, but laparoscopic appendicectomy remains the first-line management in the UK. During the COVID-19 pandemic the practice altered, with more patients offered antibiotics as treatment. A large-scale observational study was designed comparing operative and non-operative management of appendicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate 90-day follow-up. METHODS: A prospective, cohort study at 97 sites in the UK and Republic of Ireland included adult patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis that either had surgery or non-operative management. Propensity score matching was conducted using age, sex, BMI, frailty, co-morbidity, Adult Appendicitis Score and C-reactive protein. Outcomes were 90-day treatment failure in the non-operative group, and in the matched groups 30-day complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and total healthcare costs associated with each treatment. RESULTS: A total of 3420 patients were recorded: 1402 (41 per cent) had initial antibiotic management and 2018 (59 per cent) had appendicectomy. At 90-day follow-up, antibiotics were successful in 80 per cent (1116) of cases. After propensity score matching (2444 patients), fewer overall complications (OR 0.36 (95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 0.50)) and a shorter median LOS (2.5 versus 3 days, P < 0.001) were noted in the antibiotic management group. Accounting for interval appendicectomy rates, the mean total cost was €1034 lower per patient managed without surgery. CONCLUSION: This study found that antibiotics is an alternative first-line treatment for adult acute appendicitis and can lead to cost reductions.

The management of adult appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interim analysis of a UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common general surgical emergency. Early laparoscopic appendicectomy is the gold-standard management. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) brought concerns of increased perioperative mortality and spread of infection during aerosol generating procedures: as a consequence, conservative management was advised, and open appendicectomy recommended when surgery was unavoidable. This study describes the impact of the first weeks of the pandemic on the management of AA in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Patients 18 years or older, diagnosed clinically and/or radiologically with AA were eligible for inclusion in this prospective, multicentre cohort study. Data was collected from 23rd March 2020 (beginning of the UK Government lockdown) to 1st May 2020 and included: patient demographics, COVID status; initial management (operative and conservative); length of stay; and 30-day complications. Analysis was performed on the first 500 cases with 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: The patient cohort consisted of 500 patients from 48 sites. The median age of this cohort was 35 [26-49.75] years and 233 (47%) of patients were female. Two hundred and seventy-one (54%) patients were initially treated conservatively; with only 26 (10%) cases progressing to an operation. Operative interventions were performed laparoscopically in 44% (93/211). Median length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the conservatively managed group (2 [IQR 1-4] days vs. 3 [2-4], p < 0.001). At 30 days, complications were significantly higher in the operative group (p < 0.001), with no deaths in any group. Of the 159 (32%) patients tested for COVID-19 on admission, only 6 (4%) were positive. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has changed the management of acute appendicitis in the UK, with non-operative management shown to be safe and effective in the short-term. Antibiotics should be considered as the first line during the pandemic and perhaps beyond.

Decision-making for older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: defining patient and clinician values and priorities.

AIM: There remains limited knowledge on what patients value and prioritize in their decision to undergo emergency laparotomy (ELap) and during their subsequent recovery. The aim of this study was to explore factors in decision-making and to reach a consensus amongst patients on the 10 most important priorities in decision-making in ELap. METHODS: Patients aged over 65 years who had required an ELap decision within the preceding 12 months (regardless of management) were identified and invited to attend a modified Delphi process focus group. RESULTS: A total of 20 participants attended: eight patients, four relatives and eight perioperative specialists. The perioperative specialists group defined 12 important factors for perioperative decision-making. The patient group agreed that only six (50%) of these factors were important: independence, postoperative complications, readmission to hospital, requirement for stoma formation, delirium (including long-term cognition) and presence of an advocate (such as a friend or family member). Open discussion refined multiple themes. Agreement was reached by patients and relatives about 10 factors that they valued as most important in their ELap patient journey: return to independence, realistic expectations, postoperative complications, what to expect postoperatively, readmission to hospital, nutrition, postoperative communication, stoma, follow-up and delirium. CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians have different values and priorities when discussing the risks and implications of undergoing ELap. Patients value quality of life outcomes, in particular, the formation of a stoma, returning to their own home and remaining independent. This work is the first to combine both perspectives to guide future ELap research outcomes.