Aims of the study The novel coronavirus pandemic has affected emergency department consultations for surgical pathologies. The aim of our study was to compare the number of acute appendicitis cases and the proportion of complicated appendicitis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all data collected from a multi-center database of patients presenting to the emergency department for acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 12 to June 6, 2020, and compared these data with those from the same periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The number of acute appendicitis cases, proportion of complicated appendicitis, and pre- and postoperative patient characteristics were evaluated. Results A total of 306 patients were included in this evaluation. Sixty-five patients presented during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown (group A), and 241 patients in previous years (group B: 2017–2019). The number of consultations for acute appendicitis decreased by almost 20 percent during the pandemic compared with previous periods, with a significant increase in complicated appendicitis (52% in group A versus 20% in group B, p < 0,001.). Comparing the two groups, significant differences were also noted in the duration of symptoms (symptoms > 48h in 61% and 26%, p < 0,001), the intervention time (77 vs 61 minutes, p = 0,002), length of hospital stay (hospitalization of > 2 days in 63% and 32%, p < 0.001) and duration of antibiotic treatment (antibiotics > 3 days in 36% and 24% p = 0.001). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decreased number of consultations for acute appendicitis, with a higher proportion of complicated appendicitis, most likely due to patient delay in consulting the emergency department at symptom onset. Patients and general practitioners should be aware of this problem to avoid a time delay from initial symptoms to consultation.

AIMS OF THE STUDYThe novel coronavirus pandemic has affected emergency department consultations for surgical pathologies. The aim of our study was to compare the number of acute appendicitis cases and the proportion of complicated appendicitis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.METHODSWe retrospectively analyzed all data collected from a multi-center database of patients presenting to the emergency department for acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 12 to June 6, 2020, and compared these data with those from the same periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The number of acute appendicitis cases, proportion of complicated appendicitis, and pre- and postoperative patient characteristics were evaluated.RESULTSA total of 306 patients were included in this evaluation. Sixty-five patients presented during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown (group A), and 241 patients in previous years (group B: 2017–2019). The number of consultations for acute appendicitis decreased by almost 20 percent during the pandemic compared with previous periods, with a significant increase in complicated appendicitis (52% in group A versus 20% in group B, p < 0,001.). Comparing the two groups, significant differences were also noted in the duration of symptoms (symptoms > 48h in 61% and 26%, p < 0,001), the intervention time (77 vs 61 minutes, p = 0,002), length of hospital stay (hospitalization of > 2 days in 63% and 32%, p < 0.001) and duration of antibiotic treatment (antibiotics > 3 days in 36% and 24% p = 0.001).CONCLUSIONSThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decreased number of consultations for acute appendicitis, with a higher proportion of complicated appendicitis, most likely due to patient delay in consulting the emergency department at symptom onset. Patients and general practitioners should be aware of this problem to avoid a time delay from initial symptoms to consultation.

Emerging evidence suggests that RAS may act as a molecular and therapeutic target for treating AAA. However, several issues on the role of RAS and the protective activities of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and Angiotensin 1 receptors blockers against AAA require further clarifications.

Considering the intravascular nature of embolization, which aims to avoid testicular artery and spermatic cord damage (difficult to avoid with the surgical method), and consequently a lower complication rate, along with the same success rate and recurrence rate, our study supports that embolization is a superior method to surgical interventions.