Kasotakis, George

Objective: The specialty of critical care in the United States currently lacks a single, broad, unified database. We conducted a scoping review of existing established national ICU databases, describing national and international patterns of critical care delivery. Data Sources: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science search engines. Study Selection: Projects describing national critical care delivery (including any subspecialty) published in any language were included. Titles, abstracts, and full-text manuscripts were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion. Data Extraction: National database characteristics were collected, including the number and subspecialty of ICUs, the inaugural year, data entry methodology, the number of episodes of care included, and captured clinical data elements. Data Synthesis: Of 24,003 abstracts screened, 185 manuscripts were eligible for inclusion. Thirty countries were identified as having established national ICU registries: Argentina, Australia/New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay. Data entry commonly incorporates a combination of automated data abstraction from electronic healthcare systems and manual data entry, followed by independent validation. Frequently recorded variables include patient demographics; admission vital signs and laboratory data; comorbidities; admission source and diagnoses; ICU diagnoses, treatments, and complications; illness severity scores; and clinically relevant outcomes including discharge disposition, functional status, lengths of stay, and mortality. Conclusions: Insights and experience gained from the study of mature national ICU registries may be used to guide an equivalent U.S. multidisciplinary program aimed at benchmarking, needs assessment, quality improvement, and research facilitation

Objective: We sought to describe contemporary presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients presenting with acute (A), perforated (P), and gangrenous (G) appendicitis in the United States. Summary Background Data: Recent European trials have reported that medical (antibiotics only) treatment of acute appendicitis is an acceptable alternative to surgical appendectomy. However, the type of operation (open appendectomy) and average duration of stay are not consistent with current American practice and therefore their conclusions do not apply to modern American surgeons. Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study enrolled adults with appendicitis from January 2017 to June 2018. Descriptive statistics were performed. P and G were combined into a “complicated” outcome variable and risk factors were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total 3597 subjects were enrolled across 28 sites: median age was 37 (27–52) years, 1918 (53%) were male, 90% underwent computed tomography (CT) imaging, 91% were initially treated by appendectomy (98% laparoscopic), and median hospital stay was 1 (1–2) day. The 30-day rates of Emergency Department (ED) visit and readmission were 10% and 6%. Of 219 initially treated with antibiotics, 35 (16%) required appendectomy during index hospitalization and 12 (5%) underwent appendectomy within 30 days, for a cumulative failure rate of 21%. Overall, 2403 (77%) patients had A, whereas 487 (16%) and 218 (7%) patients had P and G, respectively. On regression analysis, age, symptoms >48 hours, temperature, WBC, Alvarado score, and appendicolith were predictive of “complicated” appendicitis, whereas co-morbidities, smoking, and ED triage to appendectomy >6 hours or >12 hours were not. Conclusion: In the United States, the majority of patients presenting with appendicitis receive CT imaging, undergo laparoscopic appendectomy, and stay in the hospital for 1 day. One in five patients selected for initial non-operative management required appendectomy within 30 days. In-hospital delay to appendectomy is not a risk factor for “complicated” appendicitis.