Objective: We sought to describe contemporary presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients presenting with acute (A), perforated (P), and gangrenous (G) appendicitis in the United States. Summary Background Data: Recent European trials have reported that medical (antibiotics only) treatment of acute appendicitis is an acceptable alternative to surgical appendectomy. However, the type of operation (open appendectomy) and average duration of stay are not consistent with current American practice and therefore their conclusions do not apply to modern American surgeons. Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study enrolled adults with appendicitis from January 2017 to June 2018. Descriptive statistics were performed. P and G were combined into a “complicated” outcome variable and risk factors were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total 3597 subjects were enrolled across 28 sites: median age was 37 (27–52) years, 1918 (53%) were male, 90% underwent computed tomography (CT) imaging, 91% were initially treated by appendectomy (98% laparoscopic), and median hospital stay was 1 (1–2) day. The 30-day rates of Emergency Department (ED) visit and readmission were 10% and 6%. Of 219 initially treated with antibiotics, 35 (16%) required appendectomy during index hospitalization and 12 (5%) underwent appendectomy within 30 days, for a cumulative failure rate of 21%. Overall, 2403 (77%) patients had A, whereas 487 (16%) and 218 (7%) patients had P and G, respectively. On regression analysis, age, symptoms >48 hours, temperature, WBC, Alvarado score, and appendicolith were predictive of “complicated” appendicitis, whereas co-morbidities, smoking, and ED triage to appendectomy >6 hours or >12 hours were not. Conclusion: In the United States, the majority of patients presenting with appendicitis receive CT imaging, undergo laparoscopic appendectomy, and stay in the hospital for 1 day. One in five patients selected for initial non-operative management required appendectomy within 30 days. In-hospital delay to appendectomy is not a risk factor for “complicated” appendicitis.

BACKGROUND The lack of an accurate marker of prehospital hemorrhagic shock limits our ability to triage patients to the correct level of care, delays treatment in the emergency department, and inhibits our ability to perform prehospital interventional research in trauma. End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) is the measurement of alveolar carbon dioxide concentration at end expiration and is measured noninvasively in the ventilator circuit for intubated patients in continuous manner. Several hospital-based studies have been able to demonstrate that either low or decreasing levels of ETCO2 as well as disparities between ETCO2 and plasma carbon dioxide correlate with increasing mortality in trauma. We hypothesized that prehospital ETCO2 values will be predictive of mortality and need for massive transfusion following injury. METHODS This is a single-center retrospective study from an urban level 1 trauma center. We reviewed all intubated adult patients transported for injury who had prehospital ETCO2 values available. Unadjusted comparisons of continuous variables were done with the Wilcoxon two-sample test. The predictive performance of prehospital ETCO2, the prehospital shock index, and prehospital systolic blood pressure were assessed and compared using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Optimal cutoffs were estimated by maximizing the Youden index. Massive transfusion was defined as >10 U of blood or death in 24 hours. RESULTS A total of 173 patients were identified with prehospital ETCO2 values during the 2-year study period. Population was 78.5% male with a median age of 37.5 years (interquartile range, 23.5–53.5 years). Injury mechanism was penetrating in 22.8%. This cohort had a median Injury Severity Score of 26 (interquartile range, 17–36), massive transfusion rate of 34.7%, and mortality of 42.1%. In the evaluation of prediction of postinjury mortality and massive transfusion, ETCO2 outperformed systolic blood pressure and shock index, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION End-tidal carbon dioxide is a novel prehospital predictor of mortality and massive transfusion after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic/Epidemiologic, level III.

ImportanceAortic occlusion (AO) is a lifesaving therapy for the treatment of severe traumatic hemorrhagic shock; however, there remains controversy whether AO should be accomplished via resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) or via endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in zone 1.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of AO via RT vs REBOA zone 1.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a comparative effectiveness research study using a multicenter registry of postinjury AO from October 2013 to September 2021. AO via REBOA zone 1 (above celiac artery) was compared with RT performed in the emergency department of facilities experienced in both procedures and documented in the prospective multicenter Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry. Propensity score matching (PSM) with exact institution matching was used, in addition to subgroup multivariate analysis to control for confounders. The study setting included the ED, where AO via RT or REBOA was performed, and participants were adult trauma patients 16 years or older.ExposuresAO via REBOA zone 1 vs RT.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was survival. Secondary outcomes were ventilation-free days (VFDs), intensive care unit (ICU)–free days, discharge Glasgow Coma Scale score, and Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS).ResultsA total of 991 patients (median [IQR] age, 32 [25-48] years; 808 male individuals [81.9%]) with a median (IQR) Injury Severity Score of 29 (18-50) were included. Of the total participants, 306 (30.9%) had AO via REBOA zone 1, and 685 (69.1%) had AO via RT. PSM selected 112 comparable patients (56 pairs). REBOA zone 1 was associated with a statistically significant lower mortality compared with RT (78.6% [44] vs 92.9% [52]; P = .03). There were no significant differences in VFD greater than 0 (REBOA, 18.5% [10] vs RT, 7.1% [4]; P = .07), ICU-free days greater than 0 (REBOA, 18.2% [10] vs RT, 7.1% [4]; P = .08), or discharge GOS of 5 or more (REBOA, 7.5% [4] vs RT, 3.6% [2]; P = .38). Multivariate analysis confirmed the survival benefit of REBOA zone 1 after adjustment for significant confounders (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36). In all subgroup analyses (cardiopulmonary resuscitation on arrival, traumatic brain injury, chest injury, pelvic injury, blunt/penetrating mechanism, systolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg on AO initiation), REBOA zone 1 offered an either similar or superior survival.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this comparative effectiveness research suggest that REBOA zone 1 provided better or similar survival than RT for patients requiring AO postinjury. These findings provide the ethically necessary equipoise between these therapeutic approaches to allow the planning of a randomized controlled trial to establish the safety and effectiveness of REBOA zone 1 for AO in trauma resuscitation.

No abstract