Kollár D, McCartan D P, Bourke M, Cross K S, Dowdall J
Department of Surgery, Waterford Regional Hospital, Dunmore Road, Waterford, Republic of Ireland.
World J Surg. 2015 Jan;39(1):104-9. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2794-6.
Patients presenting with suspected appendicitis pose a diagnostic challenge. The appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score has outperformed the Alvarado score in two retrospective studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the AIR Score and compare its performance in predicting risk of appendicitis to both the Alvarado score and the clinical impression of a senior surgeon.
All parameters included in the AIR and Alvarado scores as well as the initial clinical impression of a senior surgeon were prospectively recorded on patients referred to the surgical on call team with acute right iliac fossa pain over a 6-month period. Predictions were correlated with the final diagnosis of appendicitis.
Appendicitis was the final diagnosis in 67 of 182 patients (37 %). The three methods of assessment stratified similar proportions (~40 %) of patients to a low probability of appendicitis (p = 0.233) with a false negative rate of <8 % that did not differ between the AIR score, Alvarado score or clinical assessment. The AIR score assigned a smaller proportion of patients to the high probability zone than the Alvarado score (14 vs. 45 %) but it did so with a substantially higher specificity (97 %) and positive predictive value (88 %) than the Alvarado score (76 and 65 %, respectively).
The AIR score is accurate at excluding appendicitis in those deemed low risk and more accurate at predicting appendicitis than the Alvarado score in those deemed high risk. Its use as the basis for selective CT imaging in those deemed medium risk should be considered.
疑似阑尾炎患者的诊断具有挑战性。在两项回顾性研究中,阑尾炎炎症反应(AIR)评分的表现优于阿尔瓦拉多评分。本研究的目的是评估AIR评分,并将其在预测阑尾炎风险方面的表现与阿尔瓦拉多评分以及资深外科医生的临床判断进行比较。
前瞻性记录了在6个月期间因急性右下腹疼痛被转诊至外科值班团队的患者的AIR评分和阿尔瓦拉多评分所包含的所有参数,以及资深外科医生的初始临床判断。预测结果与阑尾炎的最终诊断相关。
182例患者中有67例(37%)最终诊断为阑尾炎。三种评估方法将相似比例(约40%)的患者分层为阑尾炎低概率患者(p = 0.233),AIR评分、阿尔瓦拉多评分或临床评估之间的假阴性率均<8%且无差异。与阿尔瓦拉多评分相比,AIR评分将较少比例的患者归为高概率区域(14%对45%),但AIR评分的特异性(97%)和阳性预测值(88%)显著高于阿尔瓦拉多评分(分别为76%和65%)。
AIR评分在排除低风险患者的阑尾炎方面准确,在预测高风险患者的阑尾炎方面比阿尔瓦拉多评分更准确。应考虑将其作为中等风险患者选择性CT成像的基础。