Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Pergamosarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Pergamos
Article . 2020
Data sources: Pergamos
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

Appendicitis in Pregnancy: A Post-Hoc Analysis of an EAST Multicenter Study

Authors: Georgia Vasileiou; Ahmed I. Eid; Sinong Qian; Gerd D. Pust; Rishi Rattan; Nicholas Namias; Andreas Larentzakis; +54 Authors

Appendicitis in Pregnancy: A Post-Hoc Analysis of an EAST Multicenter Study

Abstract

Objective: To compare the presentation, management, and outcomes of appendicitis in pregnant and non-pregnant females of childbearing age (18–45 years). Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of a prospectively collected database (January 2017–June 2018) from 28 centers in America. We compared pregnant and non-pregnant females' demographics, clinical presentation, laboratory data, imaging findings, management, and clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 3,597 subjects, 1,010 (28%) were of childbearing age, and 41 were pregnant: The mean age of the pregnant subjects was 30 ± 8 years at a median gestational age of 15 (range 10–23) weeks. The two groups had similar demographics and clinical presentation, but there were differences in management and outcomes. For example, in pregnant subjects, abdominal ultrasound scans (US) plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the most frequently used imaging method (41%) followed by MRI alone (29%), US alone (22%), computed tomography (CT) (5%), and no imaging (2%). Despite similar American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Emergency General Surgery Clinical and Imaging Grade at presentation, pregnant subjects were more likely to be treated with antibiotics alone (15% versus 4%; p = 0.008). Pregnant subjects were less likely to have simple appendicitis and were more likely to have complicated (perforated or gangrenous) appendicitis or a normal appendix. With the exception of index hospital length of stay, there were no significant differences between the groups in clinical outcomes at index hospitalization or at 30 days. Conclusion: Almost 1 in 20 women of childbearing age presenting with appendicitis is pregnant. Appendicitis most commonly affects women in early to mid-pregnancy. Compared with non-pregnant women of childbearing age, pregnant women presenting with appendicitis undergo non-operative management more often and are less likely to have simple appendicitis. Compared with non-pregnant patients, they have similar clinical outcomes at both index hospitalization and 30 days after discharge.

Country
Greece
Keywords

Adult, Gestational Age, Appendix, Length of Stay, Appendicitis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Patient Readmission, Severity of Illness Index, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Postoperative Complications, Intestinal Perforation, Pregnancy, Case-Control Studies, Appendectomy, Drainage, Humans, Female, Pregnancy Complications, Infectious, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Ultrasonography

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    13
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
13
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
Green