Papers

Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score

Charles D Douglas, surgical registrar ^a, Neil E Macpherson, medical student ^b, Patricia M Davidson, associate professor of paediatric surgery ^b, Jonathon S Gani, senior lecturer ^b. 

^a Department of Surgery, John Hunter Hospital, NSW 2310, Australia, ^b Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia

Correspondence to: CD Douglas cdouglas{at}hunterlink.net.au

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

Objectives: To determine whether diagnosis by graded compression ultrasonography improves clinical outcomes for patients with suspected appendicitis.
Design: A randomised controlled trial comparing clinical diagnosis (control) with a diagnostic protocol incorporating ultrasonography and the Alvarado score (intervention group).
Setting: Single tertiary referral centre.
Participants: 302 patients (age 5-82 years) referred to the surgical service with suspected appendicitis. 160 patients were randomised to the intervention group, of whom 129 underwent ultrasonography. Ultrasonography was omitted for patients with extreme Alvarado scores (1-3, 9, or 10) unless requested by the admitting surgical team.
Main outcome measures: Time to operation, duration of hospital stay, and adverse outcomes, including non-therapeutic operations and delayed treatment in association with perforation.
Results: Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were measured at 95% and 89%, respectively. Patients in the intervention group who underwent therapeutic operation had a significantly shorter mean time to operation than patients in the control group (7 v 10 hours, P=0.02). There were no differences between groups in mean duration of hospital stay (53 v 55 hours, P=0.84), proportion of patients undergoing a non-therapeutic operation (9% v 11%, P=0.59) or delayed treatment in association with perforation (3% v 1%, P=0.45).
Conclusion: Graded compression ultrasonography is an accurate procedure that leads to the prompt diagnosis and early treatment of many cases of appendicitis, although it does not prevent adverse outcomes or reduce length of hospital stay.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

Acute appendicitis is one of the commonest surgical emergencies. Simple appendicitis can progress to perforation, which is associated with a much higher morbidity and mortality, and surgeons have therefore been inclined to operate when the diagnosis is probable rather than wait until it is certain.¹ A clinical decision to operate leads to the removal of a normal appendix in 15% to 30% of cases.¹ This proportion may be reduced by observing equivocal cases for a period of time.² Reductions in the number of "unnecessary" or non-therapeutic operations, however, should not be achieved at the expense of an increase in number of perforations.³

It has been claimed that diagnostic aids can dramatically reduce the number of appendicectomies in patients without appendicitis, the number of perforations, and the time spent in hospital.¹ Methods advocated to assist in the diagnosis of appendicitis include laparoscopy, ^{4 5} scoring systems, ^{6 7} computer programs,⁸ ultrasonography,⁹ computed tomography,¹⁰ and magnetic resonance imaging.¹¹ Imaging techniques have been shown to be particularly accurate.¹² Graded compression ultrasonography is the least expensive and least invasive of these and has been reported to have an accuracy of 71% to 95%,¹² but doubts have been raised about the influence of ultrasonography on patient outcomes.¹³ Furthermore, it has been argued that findings at sonography should not supercede clinical judgment in patients with a high probability of appendicitis.¹⁴ This raises questions about whether sonography should be performed at all in patients at high risk and whether there is some reliable means of selecting those who can benefit from imaging.

The Alvarado score is a 10 point scoring system for the diagnosis of appendicitis, based on clinical signs and symptoms and a differential leucocyte count. In his original paper Alvarado recommended an operation for all patients with a score of 7 or more and observation for patients with scores of 5 or 6.⁶ Subsequent prospective studies have suggested that the Alvarado score alone is inadequate as a diagnostic test, ^{15 16} but it has been advocated as a means of selecting patients who should undergo imaging.¹⁷

We designed a diagnostic protocol incorporating graded compression ultrasonography and the Alvarado score. We then undertook a randomised controlled trial to assess whether the information provided by this protocol improved clinical outcomes.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

Ethics committee approval was obtained for this trial. Patients were considered for inclusion in the study if they were referred to the surgical service at John Hunter Hospital and John Hunter Children's Hospital with a provisional diagnosis of acute appendicitis between October 1997 and October 1998.

Patients were excluded from randomisation if they fulfilled any of the following criteria: age less than 5 years; evidence of generalised peritonitis; palpable mass in the right iliac fossa; evidence of acute confusional state or dementia; graded compression ultrasonography already performed. A project officer randomly allocated patients by coin toss to control (standard treatment) or diagnostic protocol (intervention) groups. He performed a clinical assessment from which he calculated the Alvarado score.

For patients in the control group, members of the admitting surgical team were not informed of the Alvarado score. They proceeded with appropriate clinical assessment and management. They were requested not to organise graded compression ultrasonography for 36 hours.

For patients in the intervention group, the admitting team was advised of the Alvarado score. Ultrasonography was then organised if the Alvarado score was between 4 and 8, inclusive. An Alvarado score of 9 or 10 was taken to be a relative indication for surgery, but the admitting team was given the option of organising graded compression ultrasonography; patients with an Alvarado of 3 or less were not eligible for ultrasonography. The admitting team was advised of the result of ultrasonography when this was done.

Ultrasonography
Graded compression ultrasonography results were designated positive, negative, or equivocal by the attending sonographer by using the following criteria: positiveappendix identified, tender and non-compressible or appendiceal phlegmon or abscess seen; negativeappendix not identified, no other relevant abnormality seen; equivocalappendix not identified but abnormal amount of free fluid seen with thickened, dilated, or non-peristaltic bowel in the region of the caecum.

Surgery
All patients who underwent laparotomy or laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis had an appendicectomy. The diagnosis of appendicitis was made on histological grounds. Operations were considered to be therapeutic if disease was found, when the disease seemed to be the cause for the patient's pain, and when surgery was the appropriate treatment for that disease. All other operations were classed as non-therapeutic operations.

Perforations
A designation of perforation of the appendix or bowel was based on an unequivocal finding or on objective microbiological or histopathological criteria.

Delayed treatment in association with perforation
For patients with perforation, treatment was considered to be delayed if surgery had not started within 10 hours of randomisation.

Follow up
Patients were reviewed at one week and three months.

Outcomes
Time to operation for therapeutic operations was defined as the time in hours from randomisation to skin preparation.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Profile of trial of graded compression ultrasonography and Alvarado score compared with clinical methods in diagnosis of appendicitis

Power
This sample had a power of 80% to detect a difference between groups of 3.3 hours for mean time to theatre, 15.2 hours for mean duration of stay, and a reduction in the non-therapeutic operation rate from 11% to 2%.

Data analysis
Data were analysed on an intention to treat basis. For calculation of sensitivity and specificity of graded compression ultrasonography we included cases only if a histological diagnosis was available. Diagnoses other than appendicitis were ignored. Equivocal ultrasonography reports were counted as positive.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

In total 306 patients were referred and 302 patients were enrolled in the study (figure). The mean age was slightly lower in the intervention group (20 v 24 years, P=0.04) but otherwise groups were comparable (table).

Sixteen patients were in breach of the trial protocol because the admitting surgeon in each case thought that this was in the patient's interests. All were included in the reported analysis on an intention to treat basis.

Ultrasonography
Graded compression ultrasonography was performed in 139 patients (see table 3 in the longer version of this paper on the BMJ website). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis was 95% (95% confidence interval 86% to 98%) and 89% (67% to 97%), respectively.

Surgery
There were 170 operations performed: 95 of the 160 patients in the intervention group underwent surgery compared with 75 of the 142 patients in the control group (59% v 53%, P=0.25). Appendicitis was confirmed histologically in 128 patients: 73 (46%) in the intervention group and 55 (39%) in the control group (P=0.23). Twenty nine operations were non-therapeutic: 14 (9%) in the intervention group and 15 (11%) in the control group (P=0.59).

Perforations
Nineteen patients had a perforated appendicitis (15% of all cases of appendicitis), and five had other bowel perforations. Of all perforations, 14 were in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (perforations/number in group of 9% and 7%, respectively, P=0.58).

Delayed treatment in association with perforation
There were seven cases of delayed treatment in association with perforation (six cases of appendicitis and one of perforation of a caecal carcinoma). Five of these were in the intervention group, and two were in the control group (3% v 1%, P=0.45, Fisher's exact test).

Follow up
There were no readmissions for appendicitis during the follow up period. Two patients required readmission for complications: one in the intervention group for drainage of an abscess and one in the control group for an early small bowel obstruction.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

All our patients who underwent surgery after a positive result on ultrasonography proved to have appendicitis. Patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis are usually admitted to hospital for a day or night of observation. If the result on graded compression ultrasonography is positive, however, the surgeon can operate immediately. In our study, this led to a significant reduction in mean time to therapeutic operation. The reduced time to operation in the intervention group did not, however, result in a reduced duration of hospital stay or a reduction in incidence of adverse outcomes.

Adverse outcomes
There are two outcomes that surgeons seek to avoid in cases of suspected appendicitis. The first is a non-therapeutic operation. The second is delayed treatment in a patient who is subsequently found to have perforation. In our study in each group the proportion of patients who had an adverse outcome was similar. The occurrence of several cases of delayed treatment in association with perforation, despite a low rate of perforated appendicitis (15%), suggests that rate of delayed treatment in association with perforation is a more appropriate measure of the consequences of delayed diagnosis than overall perforation rate.

Availability of ultrasonography
Seventy patients were enrolled in the study between 10 pm and 8 am and could not undergo ultrasonography immediately. A secondary analysis was performed with these patients excluded, but there was still no significant difference between groups with respect to duration of stay or adverse outcomes.

Selection of patients for imaging
We used the Alvarado score as an objective means of stratifying patients according to risk so that those with a high or low probability of appendicitis need not have unnecessary imaging. Whether the Alvarado score or some other form of risk stratification is used, selection of patients for imaging is an issue that cannot be ignored. Had we performed graded compression ultrasonography on all patients in the intervention group the results would probably have been worse (see the longer version of this paper on the BMJ website for further details). Our diagnostic protocol incorporating the Alvarado score was, if anything, safer, faster, and more accurate than graded compression ultrasonography alone, but it still failed to produce better outcomes than unaided clinical diagnosis.

General comments
When performed by experienced sonographers, graded compression ultrasonography is an accurate test. In this trial the accuracy was over 93%, equal to that of computed tomography without colonic contrast.¹² False negative reports, however, do occur: in our study 5% of negative results were incorrect. There is no certain way of determining which negative result is a false negative, and the consequences of not operating may be serious. Patients cannot be safely sent home after a negative result unless there are also clinical grounds for their discharge. It is therefore inappropriate for graded compression ultrasonography to be used by those who lack experience in the clinical diagnosis of appendicitis.

Conclusion
The diagnosis of acute appendicitis aided by graded compression ultrasonography has not been shown to produce better outcomes than clinical diagnosis alone. Further studies of graded compression ultrasonography and other diagnostic methods in suspected appendicitis should be randomised trials.

	Acknowledgments

We thank Dr John Bear and Dr Jan Bishop for assistance with sonographic and histopathological diagnosis. We also thank sonographers Sue Mullen, Jenny Gosling, Warren Jones, Brett Roworth, and Darrin Gray for their excellent technical assistance. In addition we thank Professor Michael Hensley, who reviewed the proposal for study design and gave advice about data interpretation and analysis, and Dr Brian Draganic, who gave statistical advice and reviewed and edited the drafted paper.

Contributors: CDD initiated the study, formulated the study hypotheses, proposed the study design, analysed the data, was the principal author of the paper, and is the guarantor. NEM managed the running of the trial, contributed to study design, collected the data, initiated and participated in data analysis, and helped to write the paper. PMD initiated the research in ultrasonography, supervised the running of the trial, facilitated and coordinated involvement of different departments, contributed to data interpretation, and helped to edit the paper. JSG contributed to study design, supervised the running of the trial, contributed to data interpretation and analysis, and helped to write and edit the paper.

	Footnotes

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

The full version of this paper appears on the BMJ's website

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

1.	Hoffmann J, Rasmussen OO. Aids in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 1989; 76: 774-779[Medline].
2.	Jones PF. Active observation in the management of acute abdominal pain in childhood. BMJ 1976; ii: 551-553[Medline].
3.	Velanovich V, Savata R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg 1992; 58: 264-269[Medline].
4.	Olsen JB, Myren CJ, Haahr PE. Randomized study of the value of laparoscopy before appendicectomy. Br J Surg 1993; 80: 822-923[Medline].
5.	Moberg AC, Ahlberg G, Leijonmarck CE, Montgomery A, Reiertsen O, Rosseland AR, et al. Diagnostic laparoscopy in 1043 patients with suspected appendicitis. Eur J Surg 1998; 164: 833-840[Medline].
6.	Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986; 15: 557-564[Medline].
7.	Teicher I, Landa B, Cohen M, Cabnick LS, Wise L. Scoring system to aid in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Ann Surg 1983; 198: 753-759[Medline].
8.	de Dombal FT, Leaper DJ, Staniland JR, McCann AP, Horrocks JC. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. BMJ 1972; ii: 9-13[Medline].
9.	Puylaert JBCM. Acute appendicitis: US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology 1986; 158: 355-360[Abstract].
10.	Balthazar EJ. Appendicitis: prospective evaluation with high-resolution CT. Radiology 1991; 180: 21-24[Abstract].
11.	Incesu L, Coskun A, Selcuk MB, Akan H, Sozubir S, Bernay F. Acute appendicitis: MR imaging and sonographic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 669-674[Abstract].
12.	Rao PM, Boland GWL. Imaging of acute right lower abdominal quadrant pain. Clin Radiol 1998; 53: 639-649[Medline].
13.	Ford R, Passinault W, Morse M. Diagnostic ultrasound for suspected appendicitis: Does the added cost produce a better outcome? Am Surg 1994; 60: 895-898[Medline].
14.	Sivit C. Imaging children with acute right lower quadrant pain. Pediatr Clin North Am 1997; 44: 575-589[Medline].
15.	Ohmann C, Yang Q, Franke C. Diagnostic scores for acute appendicitis. Eur J Surg 1995; 161: 273-281[Medline].
16.	Macklin CP, Radcliffe GS, Merei JM, Stringer MD. A prospective evaluation of the modified Alvarado score for acute appendicitis in children. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1997; 79: 203-205[Medline].
17.	Tobias M, Samuel E. Ultrasound and the Alvarado score. J R Soc Med 1992; 85: 585-586[Medline].

(Accepted 18 May 2000)