Diagnosing appendicitis: evidence-based review of the diagnostic approach in 2014

Daniel J Shogilev, Nicolaj Duus, Stephen R Odom, Nathan I Shapiro, Daniel J Shogilev, Nicolaj Duus, Stephen R Odom, Nathan I Shapiro

Abstract

Introduction: Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal emergency requiring emergency surgery. However, the diagnosis is often challenging and the decision to operate, observe or further work-up a patient is often unclear. The utility of clinical scoring systems (namely the Alvarado score), laboratory markers, and the development of novel markers in the diagnosis of appendicitis remains controversial. This article presents an update on the diagnostic approach to appendicitis through an evidence-based review.

Methods: We performed a broad Medline search of radiological imaging, the Alvarado score, common laboratory markers, and novel markers in patients with suspected appendicitis.

Results: Computed tomography (CT) is the most accurate mode of imaging for suspected cases of appendicitis, but the associated increase in radiation exposure is problematic. The Alvarado score is a clinical scoring system that is used to predict the likelihood of appendicitis based on signs, symptoms and laboratory data. It can help risk stratify patients with suspected appendicitis and potentially decrease the use of CT imaging in patients with certain Alvarado scores. White blood cell (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), granulocyte count and proportion of polymorphonuclear (PMN) cells are frequently elevated in patients with appendicitis, but are insufficient on their own as a diagnostic modality. When multiple markers are used in combination their diagnostic utility is greatly increased. Several novel markers have been proposed to aid in the diagnosis of appendicitis; however, while promising, most are only in the preliminary stages of being studied.

Conclusion: While CT is the most accurate mode of imaging in suspected appendicitis, the accompanying radiation is a concern. Ultrasound may help in the diagnosis while decreasing the need for CT in certain circumstances. The Alvarado Score has good diagnostic utility at specific cutoff points. Laboratory markers have very limited diagnostic utility on their own but show promise when used in combination. Further studies are warranted for laboratory markers in combination and to validate potential novel markers.

References

    1. Gwynn LK. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis: clinical assessment versus computed tomography evaluation. J Emerg Med. 2001;21(2):119–123.
    1. Andersson RE. Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2004;91(1):28–37.
    1. Bergeron E. Clinical judgment remains of great value in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Can J Surg. 2006;49(2):96–100.
    1. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, et al. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA. 2001;286(14):1748–1753.
    1. Brown TW, McCarthy ML, Kelen GD, et al. An epidemiologic study of closed emergency department malpractice claims in a national database of physician malpractice insurers. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(5):553–560.
    1. Howell JM, Eddy OL, Lukens TW, et al. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(1):71–116.
    1. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, et al. Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(12):789–796. W–291.
    1. Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2006;241(1):83–94.
    1. Krajewski S, Brown J, Phang PT, et al. Impact of computed tomography of the abdomen on clinical outcomes in patients with acute right lower quadrant pain: a meta-analysis. Can J Surg. 2011;54(1):43–53.
    1. Al-Khayal KA, Al-Omran MA. Computed tomography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of equivocal acute appendicitis. A meta-analysis. Saudi Med J. 2007;28(2):173–180.
    1. Carroll PJ, Gibson D, El-Faedy O, et al. Surgeon-performed ultrasound at the bedside for the detection of appendicitis and gallstones: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2013;205(1):102–108.
    1. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071–2077.
    1. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078–2086.
    1. Poortman P, Oostvogel HJ, Bosma E, et al. Improving diagnosis of acute appendicitis: results of a diagnostic pathway with standard use of ultrasonography followed by selective use of CT. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(3):434–441.
    1. Ramarajan N, Krishnamoorthi R, Gharahbaghian L, et al. Clinical correlation needed: what do emergency physicians do after an equivocal ultrasound for pediatric acute appendicitis? J Clin Ultrasound. 2014;42(7):385–94.
    1. Aspelund G, Fingeret A, Gross E, et al. Ultrasonography/MRI versus CT for diagnosing appendicitis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):586–593.
    1. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1596–1605.
    1. Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V, et al. Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2004;232(1):164–172.
    1. Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ, et al. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT scans. AJR Am J. Roentgenol. 2009;193(1):96–105.
    1. Ahn S. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:28.
    1. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. 1986;15(5):557–564.
    1. Ohle R, O’Reilly F, O’Brien KK, et al. The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review. BMC medicine. 2011;9:139.
    1. McKay R, Shepherd J. The use of the clinical scoring system by Alvarado in the decision to perform computed tomography for acute appendicitis in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25(5):489–493.
    1. Goldman RD, Carter S, Stephens D, et al. Prospective validation of the pediatric appendicitis score. J Pediatr. 2008;153(2):278–282.
    1. Wu HP, Chen CY, Kuo IT, et al. Diagnostic values of a single serum biomarker at different time points compared with Alvarado score and imaging examinations in pediatric appendicitis. J Surg Res. 2012;174(2):272–277.
    1. Calder JD, Gajraj H. Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Br J Hosp Med. 1995;54(4):129–133.
    1. Agrawal CS, Adhikari S, Kumar M. Role of serum C-reactive protein and leukocyte count in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in Nepalese population. NMCJ. 2008;10(1):11–15.
    1. Andersson RE, Hugander AP, Ghazi SH, et al. Diagnostic value of disease history, clinical presentation, and inflammatory parameters of appendicitis. World J. Surg. 1999;23(2):133–140.
    1. Keskek M, Tez M, Yoldas O, et al. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of leukocyte counts in operations for suspected appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(7):769–772.
    1. Khan MN, Davie E, Irshad K. The role of white cell count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. JAMC. 2004;16(3):17–19.
    1. Mentes O, Eryilmaz M, Harlak A, et al. The value of serum fibrinogen level in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2012;18(5):384–8.
    1. Ng KC, Lai SW. Clinical analysis of the related factors in acute appendicitis. Yale J Biol Med. 2002;75(1):41–45.
    1. Sengupta A, Bax G, Paterson-Brown S. White cell count and C-reactive protein measurement in patients with possible appendicitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(2):113–115.
    1. Xharra S, Gashi-Luci L, Xharra K, et al. Correlation of serum C-reactive protein, white blood count and neutrophil percentage with histopathology findings in acute appendicitis. World journal of emergency surgery: WJES. 2012;7(1):27.
    1. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, et al. Role of leukocyte count, neutrophil percentage, and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the elderly. Am Surg. 2005;71(4):344–347.
    1. Yu CW, Juan LI, Wu MH, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2012
    1. Al-Gaithy ZK. Clinical value of total white blood cells and neutrophil counts in patients with suspected appendicitis: retrospective study. World journal of emergency surgery : WJES. 2012;7(1):32.
    1. Cardall T, Glasser J, Guss DA. Clinical value of the total white blood cell count and temperature in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(10):1021–1027.
    1. Fergusson JA, Hitos K, Simpson E. Utility of white cell count and ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg. 2002;72(11):781–5.
    1. Kharbanda AB, Cosme Y, Liu K, et al. Discriminative accuracy of novel and traditional biomarkers in children with suspected appendicitis adjusted for duration of abdominal pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(6):567–574.
    1. Ortega-Deballon P, Ruiz de Adana-Belbel JC, Hernandez-Matias A, et al. Usefulness of laboratory data in the management of right iliac fossa pain in adults. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(7):1093–1099.
    1. Yildirim O, Solak C, Kocer B, et al. The role of serum inflammatory markers in acute appendicitis and their success in preventing negative laparotomy. J Invest Surg. 2006;19(6):345–352.
    1. Paajanen H, Mansikka A, Laato M, et al. Novel serum inflammatory markers in acute appendicitis. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2002;62(8):579–584.
    1. Wu HP, Lin CY, Chang CF, et al. Predictive value of C-reactive protein at different cutoff levels in acute appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23(4):449–453.
    1. Vaughan-Shaw PG, Rees JR, Bell E, et al. Normal inflammatory markers in appendicitis: evidence from two independent cohort studies. JRSM Short Rep. 2011;2(5):43.
    1. Demircan M. Plasma d-lactate level: a useful marker to distinguish a perforated appendix from acute simple appendicitis. J Invest Surg. 2004 May-Jun;17(3):173–4. discussion 175.
    1. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, et al. Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis. ANZ journal of surgery. 2006;76(1–2):71–74.
    1. Wang LT, Prentiss KA, Simon JZ, et al. The use of white blood cell count and left shift in the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2007;23(2):69–76.
    1. Andersson RE, Hugander A, Ravn H, et al. Repeated clinical and laboratory examinations in patients with an equivocal diagnosis of appendicitis. World J Surg. 2000;24(4):479–485.
    1. Andren-Sandberg A, Korner H. Quantitative and qualitative aspects of diagnosing acute appendicitis. Scand J Surg. 2004;93(1):4–9.
    1. Ebell MH. Diagnosis of appendicitis: part II. Laboratory and imaging tests. Am Fam Physician. 2008;77(8):1153–1155.
    1. Gronroos JM, Gronroos P. Leucocyte count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 1999;86(4):501–504.
    1. Gronroos P, Huhtinen H, Gronroos JM. Normal leukocyte count and C-reactive protein value do not effectively exclude acute appendicitis in children. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(5):1028–1029.
    1. Stefanutti G, Ghirardo V, Gamba P. Inflammatory markers for acute appendicitis in children: are they helpful? J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42(5):773–776.
    1. van Dieijen-Visser MP, Go PM, Brombacher PJ. The value of laboratory tests in patients suspected of acute appendicitis. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1991;29(11):749–752.
    1. Murphy CG, Glickman JN, Tomczak K, et al. Acute appendicitis is characterized by a uniform and highly selective pattern of inflammatory gene expression. Mucosal Immunol. 2008;1(4):297–308.
    1. Rivera-Chavez FA, Peters-Hybki DL, Barber RC, et al. Innate immunity genes influence the severity of acute appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):269–277.
    1. Eriksson S, Granstrom L, Olander B, et al. Leucocyte elastase as a marker in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Eur J Surg. 1995;161(12):901–905.
    1. Sack U, Biereder B, Elouahidi T, et al. Diagnostic value of blood inflammatory markers for detection of acute appendicitis in children. BMC surgery. 2006;6:15.
    1. Lycopoulou L, Mamoulakis C, Hantzi E, et al. Serum amyloid A protein levels as a possible aid in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2005;43(1):49–53.
    1. Muenzer JT, Jaffe DM, Schwulst SJ, et al. Evidence for a novel blood RNA diagnostic for pediatric appendicitis: the riboleukogram. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010;26(5):333–338.
    1. Allister L, Bachur R, Glickman J, et al. Serum markers in acute appendicitis. J Surg Res. 2011;168(1):70–75.
    1. Kentsis A, Ahmed S, Kurek K, et al. Detection and diagnostic value of urine leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein in children with suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(1):78–83 e71.
    1. Kentsis A, Lin YY, Kurek K, et al. Discovery and validation of urine markers of acute pediatric appendicitis using high-accuracy mass spectrometry. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(1):62–70 e64.
    1. Bealer JF, Colgin M. S100A8/A9: a potential new diagnostic aid for acute appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(3):333–336.
    1. Mills AM, Huckins DS, Kwok H, et al. Diagnostic characteristics of S100A8/A9 in a multicenter study of patients with acute right lower quadrant abdominal pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(1):48–55.
    1. Noh H, Chang SJ, Han A. The diagnostic values of preoperative laboratory markers in children with complicated appendicitis. J Korean Surg Soc. 2012;83(4):237–41.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться