| Literature DB >> 26388932 |
Kai-Biao Lin1,2, K Robert Lai2,3, Nan-Ping Yang4,5, Chien-Lung Chan6,3, Yuan-Hung Liu2,3,7, Ren-Hao Pan3, Chien-Hsun Huang8.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This paper presents an epidemiologic study of appendicitis in Taiwan over a twelve-year period. An analysis of the incidence in the low-income population (LIP) is included to explore the effects of lower socioeconomic status on appendicitis.Entities:
Keywords: Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Epidemiology; Socioeconomic status
Year: 2015 PMID: 26388932 PMCID: PMC4573493 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-015-0036-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Emerg Surg ISSN: 1749-7922 Impact factor: 5.469
Demographic characteristics of patients with appendicitis in Taiwan from 2000 to 2011
| Variable | Total( | Male( | Female( |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % | ||
| Age Stratum | < 0.001 | ||||||
| 0–14 y/o | 38,222 | 12.98 % | 23,382 | 14.95 % | 14,803 | 11.04 % | |
| 15–29 y/o | 91,965 | 31.22 % | 48,056 | 30.73 % | 41,589 | 31.00 % | |
| 30–44 y/o | 78,384 | 26.61 % | 41,305 | 26.41 % | 35,528 | 26.49 % | |
| 45–59 y/o | 48,590 | 16.50 % | 25,001 | 15.99 % | 23,478 | 17.50 % | |
| 60 y/o or more | 37,383 | 12.69 % | 18,627 | 11.91 % | 18,743 | 13.97 % | |
| Comorbidities a | < 0.001 | ||||||
| 0 | 281,756 | 95.66 % | 149,510 | 95.61 % | 128,227 | 95.59 % | |
| 1 | 11,732 | 3.98 % | 6,235 | 3.99 % | 5,485 | 4.09 % | |
| ≥ 2 | 1056 | 0.36 % | 626 | 0.40 % | 429 | 0.32 % | |
| Readmission for complication b | < 0.001 | ||||||
| No | 285,359 | 96.88 % | 150,293 | 96.11 % | 131,091 | 97.73 % | |
| Yes | 9,185 | 3.12 % | 6,078 | 3.89 % | 3,050 | 2.27 % | |
| Hospital Mortality | < 0.001 | ||||||
| No | 294,197 | 99.88 % | 156,147 | 99.86 % | 134,019 | 99.91 % | |
| Yes | 347 | 0.12 % | 224 | 0.14 % | 122 | 0.09 % | |
| Operation Type | < 0.001 | ||||||
| OA | 223,145 | 80.46 % | 119,052 | 80.88 % | 100,278 | 79.41 % | |
| LA | 54,178 | 19.54 % | 28,147 | 19.12 % | 26,007 | 20.59 % | |
| Hospital Level c | < 0.001 | ||||||
| District Hospital | 58,303 | 19.68 % | 30,513 | 19.40 % | 26,160 | 19.38 % | |
| Regional Hospital | 139,070 | 46.93 % | 74,210 | 47.17 % | 63,211 | 46.83 % | |
| Medical Center | 98,946 | 33.39 % | 52,585 | 33.43 % | 45,597 | 33.78 % | |
| Area level | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Urban | 252994 | 85.72 % | 133,743 | 85.34 % | 115,859 | 86.20 % | |
| Suburban | 38568 | 13.07 % | 21,004 | 13.40 % | 17,014 | 12.66 % | |
| Rural | 3594 | 1.22 % | 1,965 | 1.25 % | 1,536 | 1.14 % | |
OA Open Appendectomy LA Laparoscopic Appendectomy
A total of 4,032 records of appendicitis patients were missing information regarding gender
The denominator for “Operation Type” was the total number of patients who underwent a primary appendectomy (277,323)
a Comorbidities were identified by referring to the ICD-9-CM codes, as described in Appendix C in [17]
b Readmission for complication was defined as readmission with the diagnosis of a commonly encountered postoperative complication within 1 month after an appendectomy (Appendix B in [17])
c In Taiwan, there are four types of accreditation (medical center, regional hospital, district hospital, and unaccredited hospital). Unaccredited hospital refers to clinic, special pharmacy, and home care organizations; they cannot treat appendicitis patients. Therefore, in the present paper, we separate hospitals into three groups by accreditation status: medical center, regional hospital, and district hospital
Fig. 1Annual incidence of appendicitis (per 100,000 people) in Taiwan according to age group and gender (2000–2011)
Fig. 2Perforation ratios (per 100,000 people) in Taiwan according to age group and gender (2000–2011)
Multilevel analysis (with HLM) of the risk factors for perforation among male and female patients with appendicitis in Taiwan (2000–2011)
| Variable | Total | Male | Female | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β value | AOR |
| β value | AOR |
| β value | AOR |
| |
| Gender | |||||||||
| Femalec | 1.0 | ||||||||
| Male | 0.264 | 1.302 (1.279,1.324) | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Age(years)a | |||||||||
| 0–14 y/o | 0.779 | 2.179 (2.119,2.241) | < 0.001 | 0.620 | 1.858 (1.793,1.927) | < 0.001 | 1.048 | 2.851 (2.727,2.980) | < 0.001 |
| 15–29 y/oc | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| 30–44 y/o | 0.283 | 1.327 (1.295,1.361) | < 0.001 | 0.302 | 1.353 (1.310,1.397) | < 0.001 | 0.268 | 1.307 (1.257,1.359) | < 0.001 |
| 45–59 y/o | 0.758 | 2.134 (2.078,2.191) | < 0.001 | 0.774 | 2.167 (2.092,2.245) | < 0.001 | 0.758 | 2.134 (2.049,2.222) | < 0.001 |
| ≥60 y/o | 1.290 | 3.633 (3.532,3.737) | < 0.001 | 1.234 | 3.433 (3.304,3.568) | < 0.001 | 1.336 | 3.805 (3.647,3.969) | < 0.001 |
| Comorbiditiesa | |||||||||
| 0c | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| 1 | 0.353 | 1.424 (1.367,1.483) | < 0.001 | 0.367 | 1.443 (1.365,1.525) | < 0.001 | 0.335 | 1.398 (1.316,1.484) | < 0.001 |
| ≥2 | 0.529 | 1.697 (1.495,1.926) | < 0.001 | 0.473 | 1.604 (1.361,1.892) | < 0.001 | 0.607 | 1.834 (1.508,2.231) | < 0.001 |
| Hospital Levela | |||||||||
| District Hospitalc | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Regional Hospital | 0.223 | 1.250 (1.219,1.281) | < 0.001 | 0.233 | 1.262 (1.222,1.304) | < 0.001 | 0.229 | 1.258 (1.210,1.308) | < 0.001 |
| Medical Center | 0.394 | 1.483 (1.444,1.523) | < 0.001 | 0.381 | 1.464 (1.413,1.516) | < 0.001 | 0.428 | 1.534 (1.472,1.598) | < 0.001 |
| Area levela | |||||||||
| Urbanc | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Suburban | 0.038 | 1.038 (1.011,1.067) | 0.007 | 0.044 | 1.045 (1.009,1.083) | 0.015 | 0.008 | 1.008 (0.966,1.051) | 0.713 |
| Rural | 0.269 | 1.308 (1.210,1.415) | < 0.001 | 0.251 | 1.285 (1.160,1.423) | < 0.001 | 0.256 | 1.292 (1.140,1.463) | < 0.001 |
| Readmissiona | |||||||||
| Noc | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Yes | 1.595 | 4.930 (4.712,5.159) | < 0.001 | 1.528 | 4.608 (4.361,4.870) | < 0.001 | 1.706 | 5.506 (5.087,5.961) | < 0.001 |
| Socioeconomic statusb | |||||||||
| Normal populationc | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Low-income population | 0.093 | 1.098 (1.018,1.184) | 0.016 | 0.139 | 1.149 (1.038,1.273) | 0.008 | 0.048 | 1.049 (0.936,1.176) | 0.410 |
aIndividual level. bCluster level. AOR: adjusted odds ratio.c: Reference group
A multivariate analysis was conducted after adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, hospital level, area level, readmission, and socioeconomic status
The mean LOS and hospital cost for patients with appendicitis, acute appendicitis, primary appendectomy, and perforated appendicitis in Taiwan (2000–2011)
| Variable | Gender | Appendicitis | Acute appendicitis | Primary appendectomy | Perforated appendicitis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean hospital stay ± SE (days) | Male | 4.85 ± 0.01 | 4.77 ± 0.01 | 4.82 ± 0.01 | 7.63 ± 0.03 |
| Female | 4.65 ± 0.01 | 4.56 ± 0.01 | 4.77 ± 0.01 | 7.44 ± 0.03 | |
| Total | 4.76 ± 0.01 | 4.67 ± 0.01 | 4.80 ± 0.01 | 7.55 ± 0.19 | |
| Male–female ratio | 1.04 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 1.03 | |
| Mean hospital cost ± SE (US$) | Male | 1,052 ± 1 | 1,039 ± 1 | 1,091 ± 2 | 1,462 ± 5 |
| Female | 1,030 ± 2 | 1,016 ± 1 | 1,120 ± 2 | 1,449 ± 6 | |
| Total | 1,042 ± 1 | 1,029 ± 1 | 1,104 ± 1 | 1,457 ± 4 | |
| Male–female ratio | 1.02 | 1.02 | 0.97 | 1.01 |
SE standard error of the mean
To reduce the effect of extreme data on the mean LOS and hospital cost values, the 1 % maximum and 1 % minimum values were excluded from the raw data
Fig. 3Length of hospital stay (per 100,000 people) for appendicitis in Taiwan by age group and gender (2000–2011)
Fig. 4Monthly incidences of appendicitis, acute appendicitis, primary appendectomy, and perforated appendicitis in Taiwan (2000–2011)
Descriptive statistics of the sample population for LIP and NP patients with appendicitis from Taiwan’s NHIRD (2000–2011)
| Year | SUM | Normal population | Low-income population | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | ||
| 2000 | 27,048 | 26,839 | 99.23 % | 209 | 0.77 % |
| 2001 | 27,941 | 27,677 | 99.06 % | 264 | 0.94 % |
| 2002 | 27,480 | 27,188 | 98.94 % | 292 | 1.06 % |
| 2003 | 25,099 | 24,819 | 98.88 % | 280 | 1.12 % |
| 2004 | 24,828 | 24,540 | 98.84 % | 288 | 1.16 % |
| 2005 | 23,686 | 23,401 | 98.80 % | 285 | 1.20 % |
| 2006 | 23,057 | 22,728 | 98.57 % | 329 | 1.43 % |
| 2007 | 23,122 | 22,831 | 98.74 % | 291 | 1.26 % |
| 2008 | 23,140 | 22,807 | 98.56 % | 333 | 1.44 % |
| 2009 | 23,365 | 23,013 | 98.49 % | 352 | 1.51 % |
| 2010 | 23,239 | 22,855 | 98.35 % | 384 | 1.65 % |
| 2011 | 22,586 | 22,212 | 98.34 % | 374 | 1.66 % |
| Sum | 294,591 | 290,910 | 98.75 % | 3,681 | 1.25 % |
The total number of patients (294,544) was smaller than the sum of the number of NP and LIP patients (294,591) because some patients belonged to different SES groups when they were readmitted to the hospital at different times
Fig. 5Annual incidence of appendicitis in Taiwan according to socioeconomic status (2000–2011)
Fig. 6Annual incidence of perforated appendicitis in Taiwan according to socioeconomic group (2000–2011)
Subgroup analysis with a multiple linear regression analysis to compare the differences in hospital costs (USD) and LOS (days) between LIP and NP patients
| Stratified variables | Hospital cost (USD) | LOS (days) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SES (LIP versus NP) | SES (LIP versus NP) | |||||
| Coefficient | SE |
| Coefficient | SE |
| |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 37 | 13 | 0.004 | 0.57 | 0.09 | < 0.001 |
| Female | 96 | 14 | < 0.001 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.013 |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| 0–14 y/o | −40 | 18 | 0.031 | −0.20 | 0.12 | 0.086 |
| 15–29 y/o | 45 | 11 | < 0.001 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.819 |
| 30–44 y/o | 144 | 17 | < 0.001 | 0.34 | 0.06 | < 0.001 |
| 45–59 y/o | 274 | 31 | < 0.001 | 1.39 | 0.19 | < 0.001 |
| 60 y/o or more | 234 | 48 | < 0.001 | 1.83 | 0.26 | < 0.001 |
| Perforated appendicitis | ||||||
| No | 37 | 8 | < 0.001 | 0.26 | 0.05 | < 0.001 |
| Yes | 133 | 25 | < 0.001 | 0.68 | 0.15 | < 0.001 |
A multivariate analysis was conducted after adjusting for age, gender, hospital level, and comorbidities
LIP low-income population NP normal population SE standard error
Fig. 7Temporal trends of appendicitis, acute appendicitis, perforated appendicitis, and appendectomy in Taiwan (2000–2011)