South African journal of surgery. Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir chirurgie · 2017
C-reactive protein as a predictor of severity of appendicitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Van den Worm L, Georgiou E, De Klerk M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Complex (perforated or gangrenous) appendicitis has a high rate of morbidity in South Africa.
METHOD: The study retrospectively reviewed results from January 2013 to December 2015 at Paarl Hospital in the Western Cape province. All patients who had their appendices surgically removed due to suspected appendicitis and who had preoperative results for CRP and WCC were included. Using the area under the Receiver Operated Characteristics curve we compared the inflammatory markers of 2 groups with histologically proven appendicitis: those with complex (perforated or gangrenous appendix) and those with uncomplicated appendicitis (inflamed appendix). Youden's J statistic was used to determine the optimal cut-off value above which complex appendicitis would be the most likely diagnosis.
RESULTS: A total of 591 patients were identified, 385 had results for both WCC and CRP. CRP (AUC 72%) proved to be a fair and WCC (AUC 58%) a poor predictor of complex appendicitis. Cut-off values for CRP and WCC were found to be 215 mg/l and 16.80 109 cells/l respectively. At these threshold values CRP (sensitivity 51.4%, specificity 85.7%, p-value < 0.001, positive predictive value 80.2%, negative predictive value 61%, positive likelihood ratio 3.6 and diagnostic odds ratio 6.35) proved to be much better than WCC (sensitivity 43%, specificity 73.8%, p-value = 0.022, positive predictive value 64.9%, negative predictive value 53.4%, positive likelihood ratio 1.64 and diagnostic odds ratio 2.11) in predicting complex appendicitis.
CONCLUSION: CRP is superior to WCC in the differentiation between uncomplicated and complex appendicitis. Using a cut-off value of CRP 215 mg/l is statistically significant in diagnosing complex appendicitis. This value should be used cautiously as many more studies are needed to confirm these findings.
METHOD: The study retrospectively reviewed results from January 2013 to December 2015 at Paarl Hospital in the Western Cape province. All patients who had their appendices surgically removed due to suspected appendicitis and who had preoperative results for CRP and WCC were included. Using the area under the Receiver Operated Characteristics curve we compared the inflammatory markers of 2 groups with histologically proven appendicitis: those with complex (perforated or gangrenous appendix) and those with uncomplicated appendicitis (inflamed appendix). Youden's J statistic was used to determine the optimal cut-off value above which complex appendicitis would be the most likely diagnosis.
RESULTS: A total of 591 patients were identified, 385 had results for both WCC and CRP. CRP (AUC 72%) proved to be a fair and WCC (AUC 58%) a poor predictor of complex appendicitis. Cut-off values for CRP and WCC were found to be 215 mg/l and 16.80 109 cells/l respectively. At these threshold values CRP (sensitivity 51.4%, specificity 85.7%, p-value < 0.001, positive predictive value 80.2%, negative predictive value 61%, positive likelihood ratio 3.6 and diagnostic odds ratio 6.35) proved to be much better than WCC (sensitivity 43%, specificity 73.8%, p-value = 0.022, positive predictive value 64.9%, negative predictive value 53.4%, positive likelihood ratio 1.64 and diagnostic odds ratio 2.11) in predicting complex appendicitis.
CONCLUSION: CRP is superior to WCC in the differentiation between uncomplicated and complex appendicitis. Using a cut-off value of CRP 215 mg/l is statistically significant in diagnosing complex appendicitis. This value should be used cautiously as many more studies are needed to confirm these findings.