PofoliaShared via Pofolia

JAMA· 2015Q1

Antibiotic Therapy vs Appendectomy for Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis

Paulina Salminen, Hannu Paajanen, Tero Rautio, Pia Nordström et al.

Short summary

Antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis did not meet noninferiority criteria compared to appendectomy, with 27.3% of antibiotic-treated patients eventually requiring surgery within one year.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis did not demonstrate noninferiority to appendectomy.
  • 27.3% of patients treated with antibiotics eventually required appendectomy within 1 year.
  • 72.7% of patients treated with antibiotics did not require surgery during the 1-year follow-up.
  • Delayed appendectomy in the antibiotic group did not lead to major complications.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: An increasing amount of evidence supports the use of antibiotics instead of surgery for treating patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis confirmed by computed tomography (CT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter, open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 2009 until June 2012 in Finland. The trial enrolled 530 patients aged 18 to 60 years with uncomplicated acute appendicitis confirmed by a CT scan. Patients were randomly assigned to early appendectomy or antibiotic treatment with a 1-year follow-up period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomized to antibiotic therapy received intravenous ertapenem (1 g/d) for 3 days followed by 7 days of oral levofloxacin (500 mg once daily) and metronidazole (500 mg 3 times per day). Patients randomized to the surgical treatment group were assigned to undergo standard open appendectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point for the surgical intervention was the successful completion of an appendectomy. The primary end point for antibiotic-treated patients was discharge from the hospital without the need for surgery and no recurrent appendicitis during a 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: There were 273 patients in the surgical group and 257 in the antibiotic group. Of 273 patients in the surgical group, all but 1 underwent successful appendectomy, resulting in a success rate of 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0% to 100.0%). In the antibiotic group, 70 patients (27.3%; 95% CI, 22.0% to 33.2%) underwent appendectomy within 1 year of initial presentation for appendicitis. Of the 256 patients available for follow-up in the antibiotic group, 186 (72.7%; 95% CI, 66.8% to 78.0%) did not require surgery. The intention-to-treat analysis yielded a difference in treatment efficacy between groups of -27.0% (95% CI, -31.6% to ∞) (P = .89). Given the prespecified noninferiority margin of 24%, we were unable to demonstrate noninferiority of antibiotic treatment relative to surgery. Of the 70 patients randomized to antibiotic treatment who subsequently underwent appendectomy, 58 (82.9%; 95% CI, 72.0% to 90.8%) had uncomplicated appendicitis, 7 (10.0%; 95% CI, 4.1% to 19.5%) had complicated acute appendicitis, and 5 (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.4% to 15.9%) did not have appendicitis but received appendectomy for suspected recurrence. There were no intra-abdominal abscesses or other major complications associated with delayed appendectomy in patients randomized to antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with CT-proven, uncomplicated appendicitis, antibiotic treatment did not meet the prespecified criterion for noninferiority compared with appendectomy. Most patients randomized to antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis did not require appendectomy during the 1-year follow-up period, and those who required appendectomy did not experience significant complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01022567.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. JAMA, 2015 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Emergency Medicine

Emergency MedicineMedicine