Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Javanmard-Emamghissi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8499866 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction:Constant technological progress in the field of carotid stenting translates into improved short- and long-term results of endovascular treatment. The introduction of a new generation, self-expanding, open-cell stent has provided a new treatment option in endovascular management of carotid stenosis. Aim:To evaluate 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes of non-consecutive patients with high risk of carotid endarterectomy, who underwent 5F cylinder-tapered MER™ open-cell carotid stent implantation. Material and methods:It was a single-arm, prospective study conducted in four experienced catheterisation centres. The use of embolic protection devices was mandatory. The primary endpoint was stroke in 30-day follow-up. The secondary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year cumulative incidence of death, stroke and myocardial infarction, 1-year target vessel revascularisation, procedural success (residual stenosis ? 30%), restenosis rate (%DS ? 50%), and Serious Adverse Device Effect (SADE) rate in 1-year follow-up. Results:In total 100 patients were recruited for the study, with the majority being males (n = 61). The mean age was 68.3 ±8.2 years, and most of the patients were asymptomatic (n = 56). In 55 (55%) patients direct stenting was performed, with the use of proximal protection devices in 19 (19%) patients. Mean internal carotid artery/common carotid artery stenosis before and after stent implantation was 81.98 ±9.15% and 12.52 ±8.70%, respectively (p < 0.001). Procedural success was achieved in all cases. One ischaemic stroke was observed at 30 days (1%, primary endpoint). At 1-year follow-up two myocardial infarctions and three deaths occurred with no additional stroke. Conclusions:The OCEANUS study indicated the safety and efficacy of the MER™ stent during 30-day and 1-year follow-up in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The majority of patients were event-free. However, larger cohort studies are needed to evaluate MER™ stents in detail.

Project description:BackgroundThe U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD).MethodsA financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions.ResultsA total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting.ConclusionsThe cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.