Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2024 Jun 1;159(6):642-649.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0235.

Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0

Collaborators, Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0

Jochem C G Scheijmans et al. JAMA Surg. .

Abstract

Importance: When considering nonoperative treatment in a patient with acute appendicitis, it is crucial to accurately rule out complicated appendicitis. The Atema score, also referred to as the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS), has been designed to differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis but has not been prospectively externally validated.

Objective: To externally validate the SAS and, in case of failure, to develop an improved SAS (2.0) for estimating the probability of complicated appendicitis.

Design, setting, and participants: This prospective study included adult patients who underwent operations for suspected acute appendicitis at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2020 and August 2021.

Main outcomes and measures: Appendicitis severity was predicted according to the SAS in 795 patients and its sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for complicated appendicitis were calculated. Since the predefined targets of 95% for both were not met, the SAS 2.0 was developed using the same cohort. This clinical prediction model was developed with multivariable regression using clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings. The SAS 2.0 was externally validated in a temporal validation cohort consisting of 565 patients.

Results: In total, 1360 patients were included, 463 of whom (34.5%) had complicated appendicitis. Validation of the SAS resulted in a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 78.8-87.6) and an NPV of 85.0% (95% CI, 80.6-88.8), meaning that the predefined targets were not achieved. Therefore, the SAS 2.0 was developed, internally validated (C statistic, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89), and subsequently externally validated (C statistic, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89). The SAS 2.0 was designed to calculate a patient's individual probability of having complicated appendicitis along with a 95% CI.

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, external validation of the SAS fell short in accurately distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. The newly developed and externally validated SAS 2.0 was able to assess an individual patient's probability of having complicated appendicitis with high accuracy in patients with acute appendicitis. Use of this patient-specific risk assessment tool can be helpful when considering and discussing nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis with patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Scheijmans and Stoker reported grants from Maag Lever Darm Stichting during the conduct of the study. Dr Boermeester reported institutional fees for serving as a speaker and/or instructor from 3M, Johnson & Johnson, Gore, Smith & Nephew, Angiodynamics, Telabio, Medtronic, and Molnlycke outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flow Diagram of Study Inclusions
aDid not meet inclusion criteria, met exclusion criteria, were not willing to participate, or logistic reasons. In most of these cases, no note was made in the file, so the exact reason for noninclusion is unknown. It was expected that the main reasons were logistic, such as forgetting to inform the patient about the study or to ask for participation.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. The Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) 2.0
The SAS 2.0 assesses the probability of having complicated appendicitis for patients with acute appendicitis without using a cutoff (A). Use of a cutoff would result in a binary outcome wherein the outcome is highly influenced by the chosen cutoff value and many different patients are grouped together under the same denominator (B). SAS 2.0 computes a probability along with a confidence interval, enabling physicians to properly inform their patients and together make a decision regarding further treatment options (C). This way, the physician and patient can determine together what risk of complicated appendicitis is acceptable.

Comment on

References

    1. Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T, et al. . Antibiotic therapy vs appendectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: the APPAC randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(23):2340-2348. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6154 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S, et al. . Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9777):1573-1579. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60410-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Flum DR, Davidson GH, Monsell SE, et al. ; CODA Collaborative . A randomized trial comparing antibiotics with appendectomy for appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(20):1907-1919. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2014320 - DOI - PubMed
    1. O’Leary DP, Walsh SM, Bolger J, et al. . A randomised clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and quality of life of antibiotic only treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: results of the COMMA trial. Ann Surg. 2021;274(2):240-247. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004785 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bom WJ, Scheijmans JCG, Salminen P, Boermeester MA. Diagnosis of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults. Scand J Surg. 2021;110(2):170-179. doi:10.1177/14574969211008330 - DOI - PMC - PubMed