Yield of Adding chest CT to Abdominal CT to Detect COVID-19 in Patients Presenting With Acute Gastrointestinal Symptoms (SCOUT-3): Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental yield of standardized addition of chest CT to abdominal CT to detect COVID-19 in patients presenting with primarily acute gastrointestinal symptoms requiring abdominal imaging. Summary Background Data: Around 20% of patients with COVID-19 present with gastrointestinal symptoms. COVID-19 might be neglected in these patients, as the focus could be on finding abdominal pathology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several centers have routinely added chest CT to abdominal CT to detect possible COVID-19 in patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the incremental yield of this strategy is unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study in 6 Dutch centers included consecutive adult patients presenting with acute nontraumatic gastrointestinal symptoms, who underwent standardized combined abdominal and chest CT between March 15, 2020 and April 30, 2020. All CT scans were read for signs of COVID-19 related pulmonary sequelae using the СО-RADS score. The primary outcome was the yield of high COVID-19 suspicion (СО-RADS 4-5) based on chest CT. RESULTS: A total of 392 patients were included. Radiologic suspicion for COVID-19 (СО-RADS 4-5) was present in 17 (4.3%) patients, eleven of which were diagnosed with COVID-19. Only 5 patients with СО-RADS 4-5 presented without any respiratory symptoms and were diagnosed with COVID-19. No relation with community prevalence could be detected. CONCLUSION: The yield of adding chest CT to abdominal CT to detect COVID-19 in patients presenting with acute gastrointestinal symptoms is extremely low with an additional detection rate of around 1%.

Population preference for treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Non-operative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis is safe and increasing in popularity, but has other risks and benefits compared with appendicectomy. This study aimed to explore the preference of the general population regarding operative or antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: In this prospective study, a clinical scenario and questionnaire were submitted to a panel comprising a sample of an average adult population. The survey was distributed by an independent, external research bureau, and included a comprehensive explanation of the risks and benefits of both treatment options. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who would prefer antibiotics over surgery. Secondary outcomes were reasons for this preference and the accepted recurrence rate within 1 year when treated with antibiotics only. All outcomes were weighted for the average Dutch population. RESULTS: Of 254 participants, 49.2 per cent preferred antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 44.5 per cent preferred surgery, and 6.3 per cent could not make a decision. About half of the participants preferring antibiotics would accept a recurrence risk of more than 50 per cent within 1 year. Avoiding surgery was their main reason. In participants preferring surgery, many tolerated a recurrence risk of no more than 10 per cent when treated with antibiotics. Removal of the cause of appendicitis was their main reason. CONCLUSION: Around half of the average population sample preferred antibiotics over surgical treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis and were willing to accept a high recurrence risk to avoid surgery initially. Participants who preferred surgery tolerated only a very low recurrence risk with antibiotic treatment.

Diagnosis of Uncomplicated and Complicated Appendicitis in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic work-up of acute appendicitis remains challenging. While some guidelines advise to use a risk stratification based on clinical parameters, others use standard imaging in all patients. As non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis has been identified as feasible and safe, differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is of paramount importance. We reviewed the literature to describe the optimal strategy for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. METHODS: A narrative review about the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult patients was conducted. Both diagnostic strategies and goals were analyzed. RESULTS: For diagnosing acute appendicitis, both ruling in and ruling out the disease are important. Clinical and laboratory findings individually do not suffice, but when combined in a diagnostic score, a better risk prediction can be made for having acute appendicitis. However, for accurate diagnosis imaging seems obligatory in patients suspected for acute appendicitis. Scoring systems combining clinical and imaging features may differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and may enable ruling out complicated appendicitis. Within conservatively treated patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, predictive factors for non-responsiveness to antibiotics and recurrence of appendicitis need to be defined in order to optimize treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Standard imaging increases the diagnostic power for both ruling in and ruling out acute appendicitis. Incorporating imaging features in clinical scoring models may provide better differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Optimizing patient selection for antibiotic treatment of appendicitis may minimize recurrence rates, resulting in better treatment outcomes.

Normal inflammatory markers and acute appendicitis: a national multicentre prospective cohort analysis.

PURPOSE: For the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, the combination of clinical and laboratory variables achieves high diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, appendicitis can present with normal laboratory tests of inflammation. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of normal inflammatory markers in patients operated for acute appendicitis. METHODS: This is an analysis of data from a prospective, multicentre SNAPSHOT cohort study of patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Only patients with histopathologically proven acute appendicitis were included. Adult patients with acute appendicitis and normal preoperative inflammatory markers were explored further in terms of abdominal complaints, preoperative imaging results and intraoperative assessment of the degree of inflammation and compared to those with elevated inflammatory markers. RESULTS: Between June and July 2014, 1303 adult patients with histopathologically proven acute appendicitis were included. In only 23 of 1303 patients (1.8%) with proven appendicitis, both preoperative white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels were normal. Migration of pain was reported less frequently in patients with normal inflammatory markers compared to those with elevated inflammatory marker levels (17.4% versus 43.0%, p = 0.01). Characteristics like fever, duration of symptoms and localized peritonitis were comparable. Only 4 patients with normal inflammatory markers (0.3% overall) had complicated appendicitis at histopathological evaluation. CONCLUSION: Combined normal WBC and CRP levels are seen in about 2 per 100 patients with confirmed acute appendicitis and can, although rarely, be found in patients with complicated appendicitis.

The predictive value of new-onset atrial fibrillation on postoperative morbidity after esophagectomy.

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently observed following esophagectomy and may predict other complications. The aim of the current study was to determine the association between, and the possible predictive value of, new-onset AF and infectious complications following esophagectomy. Consecutive patients who underwent elective esophagectomy with curative intent for esophageal cancer between 2004 and 2016 in the University Medical Center Utrecht were included from a prospective database. The date of diagnosis of the complications included in the current analysis was retrospectively collected from the computerized medical record. The association between new-onset AF and infectious complications was studied in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. A total of 455 patients were included. In 93 (20.4%) patients new-onset AF was encountered after esophagectomy. There were no significant differences in patient and treatment-related characteristics between the patients with and without AF. In 9 (9.7%) patients, AF was the only adverse event following surgery. In multivariable analyses, AF was significantly associated with infectious complications in general (OR 3.00, 95% CI: 1.73-5.21). More specifically, AF was associated with pulmonary complications (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.29-3.30), pneumonia (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.48-3.91) and anastomotic leakage (OR 3.00, 95% CI: 1.80-4.99). In patients who underwent esophagectomy, new-onset AF was highly associated with infectious complications. AF may serve as an early clinical warning sign for anastomotic leakage. Therefore, further evaluation of patients who develop new-onset AF after esophagectomy is warranted.