Balthazar computed tomography severity index is superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE Ⅱ scoring system in predicting acute pancreatitis outcome

AIM： Acute pancreatitis （AP） is a process with variable involvement of regional tissues or organ systems. Multifactorial scales included the Ranson, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation （APACHE Ⅱ） systems and Balthazar computed tomography severity index （CTSI）. The purpose of this review study was to assess the accuracy of CTSI, Ranson score, and APACHE II score in course and outcome prediction of AP. METHODS： We reviewed 121 patients who underwent helical CT within 48 h after onset of symptoms of a first episode of AP between 1999 and 2003. Fourteen inappropriate subjects were excluded; we reviewed the 107 contrastenhanced CT images to calculate the CTSI. We also reviewed their Ranson and APACHE Ⅱ score. In addition, complications, duration of hospitalization, mortality rate, and other pathology history also were our comparison parameters. RESULTS： We classified 85 patients （79%） as having mild AP （CTSI 〈5） and 22 patients （21%） as having severe AP （CTSI ≥5）. In mild group, the mean APACHE II score and Ranson score was 8.6±1.9 and 2.4±1.2, and those of severe group was 10.2±2.1 and 3.1±0.8, respectively. The most common complication was pseudocyst and abscess and it presented in 21 （20%） patients and their CTSI was 5.9±1.4. A CTSI ≥5 significantly correlated with death, complication present, and prolonged length of stay. Patients with a CTSI ≥5 were 15 times to die than those CTSI 〈5, and the prolonged length of stay and complications present were 17 times and 8 times than that in CTSI 〈5, respectively. CONCLUSION： CTSI is a useful tool in assessing the severity and outcome of AP and the CTSI ≥5 is an index in our study. Although Ranson score and APACHE II score also are choices to be the predictors for complications, mortality and the length of stay of AP, the sensitivity of them are lower than CTSI.

APACHE system is better than Ranson system in the prediction of severity of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that addition of obesity score to the APACHE-Ⅱ system can lead to more accurate prediction of severity of acute pancreatitis. However there is scanty information on the usefulness of the combined APACHE-O scoring system in Asian patients. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of Ranson, APACHE-Ⅱ and APACHE-O systems in assessing severity of acute pancreatitis in a local Chinese population. METHODS: One hundred and one consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis were prospectively studied. Body mass index (BMI) was measured on admission. Ranson score, APACHE-Ⅱ and APACHE-O scores were recorded on admission and at 48 hours. By adopting the cut-off levels and definitions advocated in the Atlanta consensus for severe disease, the diagnostic accuracy of the three scoring systems was compared by the area under the curve (AUC) under the receiver operator characteristic curve. RESULTS: Of the 101 patients, 12 (11.9%) patients suffered from severe pancreatitis. Obesity was uncommon and only two patients (2.0%) had BMI >30. Eighty-two (81.2%) patients were normal weight (BMI≤25) whereas 17 (16.8%) were overweight ( BMI 25-30 ). Overweight or obesity (BMI >25) was not associated with severe pancreatitis (P= 0.40). The AUC for admission scores of Ranson, APACHE-Ⅱ, and APACHE-O systems was 0. 549, 0. 904 and 0. 904, respectively. The AUC for 48-hour scores of Ranson, APACHE-Ⅱ and APACHE-O systems was 0.808, 0.955 and 0.951, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The APACHE-Ⅱ scoring system is more accurate than the Ranson scoring system of the prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis. Addition of obesity score does not significantly improve the predictive accuracy of the APACHE-Ⅱ system in our local population with a low prevalence of obesity.

Predictive value of C-reactive protein/albumin ratio in acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND:Serum C-reactive protein(CRP) increases and albumin decreases in patients with inflammation and infection.However,their role in patients with acute pancreatitis is not clear.The present study was to investigate the predictive significance of the CRP/albumin ratio for the prognosis and mortality in acute pancreatitis patients.METHODS:This study was performed retrospectively with 192 acute pancreatitis patients between January 2002 and June 2015.Ranson scores,Atlanta classification and CRP/albumin ratios of the patients were calculated.RESULTS:The CRP/albumin ratio was higher in deceased patients compared to survivors.The CRP/albumin ratio was positively correlated with Ranson score and Atlanta classification in particular and with important prognostic markers such as hospitalization time,CRP and erythrocyte sedimentation rate.In addition to the CRP/albumin ratio,necrotizing pancreatitis type,moderately severe and severe Atlanta classification,and total Ranson score were independent risk factors of mortality.It was found that an increase of 1 unit in the CRP/albumin ratio resulted in an increase of 1.52 times in mortality risk.A prediction value about CRP/albumin ratio >16.28 was found to be a significant marker in predicting mortality with 92.1% sensitivity and 58.0% specificity.It was seen that Ranson and Atlanta classification were higher in patients with CRP/albumin ratio >16.28 compared with those with CRP/albumin ratio ≤16.28.Patients with CRP/albumin ratio >16.28 had a 19.3 times higher chance of death.CONCLUSION:The CRP/albumin ratio is a novel but promising,easy-to-measure,repeatable,non-invasive inflammationbased prognostic score in acute pancreatitis.

Sequential organ failure assessment score is superior to other prognostic indices in acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Acute pancreatitis(AP)is a common surgical condition,with severe AP(SAP)potentially lethal.Many prognostic indices,including;acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score(APACHE II),bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis(BISAP),Glasgow score,harmless acute pancreatitis score(HAPS),Ranson’s score,and sequential organ failure assessment(SOFA)evaluate AP severity and predict mortality.AIM To evaluate these indices'utility in predicting severity,intensive care unit(ICU)admission,and mortality.METHODS A retrospective analysis of 653 patients with AP from July 2009 to September 2016 was performed.The demographic,clinical profile,and patient outcomes were collected.SAP was defined as per the revised Atlanta classification.Values for APACHE II score,BISAP,HAPS,and SOFA within 24 h of admission were retrospectively obtained based on laboratory results and patient evaluation recorded on a secure hospital-based online electronic platform.Data with<10%missing data was imputed via mean substitution.Other patient information such as demographics,disease etiology,and patient outcomes were also derived from electronic medical records.RESULTS The mean age was 58.7±17.5 years,with 58.7%males.Gallstones(n=404,61.9%),alcohol(n=38,5.8%),and hypertriglyceridemia(n=19,2.9%)were more common aetiologies.81(12.4%)patients developed SAP,20(3.1%)required ICU admission,and 12(1.8%)deaths were attributed to SAP.Ranson’s score and APACHE-II demonstrated the highest sensitivity in predicting SAP(92.6%,80.2%respectively),ICU admission(100%),and mortality(100%).While SOFA and BISAP demonstrated lowest sensitivity in predicting SAP(13.6%,24.7%respectively),ICU admission(40.0%,25.0%respectively)and mortality(50.0%,25.5%respectively).However,SOFA demonstrated the highest specificity in predicting SAP(99.7%),ICU admission(99.2%),and mortality(98.9%).SOFA demonstrated the highest positive predictive value,positive likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio,and overall accuracy in predicting SAP,ICU admission,and mortality.SOFA and Ranson’s score demonstrated the highest area under receiver-operator curves at 48 h in predicting SAP(0.966,0.857 respectively),ICU admission(0.943,0.946 respectively),and mortality(0.968,0.917 respectively).CONCLUSION The SOFA and 48-h Ranson’s scores accurately predict severity,ICU admission,and mortality in AP,with more favorable statistics for the SOFA score.

A comparison of APACHE II,BISAP,Ranson’s score and modified CTSI in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis based on the 2012 revised Atlanta Classification

Objective:Our aim was to prospectively compare the Accuracy of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation(APACHE)II,Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis(BISAP),Ranson’s score and modified Computed Tomography Severity Index(CTSI)in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis based on Atlanta 2012 definitions in a tertiary care hospital in northern India.Methods:Fifty patients with acute pancreatitis admitted to our hospital during the period of March 2015 to September 2016 were included in the study.APACHE II,BISAP and Ranson’s score were calculated for all the cases.Modified CTSI was also determined based on a pancreatic protocol contrast enhanced computerized tomography(CT).Optimal cut-offs for these scoring systems and the area under the curve(AUC)were evaluated based on the receiver operating characteristics(ROC)curve and these scoring systems were compared prospectively.Results:Of the 50 cases,14 were graded as severe acute pancreatitis.Pancreatic necrosis was present in 15 patients,while 14 developed persistent organ failure and 14 needed intensive care unit(ICU)admission.The AUC for modified CTSI was consistently the highest for predicting severe acute pancreatitis(0.919),pancreatic necrosis(0.993),organ failure(0.893)and ICU admission(0.993).APACHE II was the second most accurate in predicting severe acute pancreatitis(AUC 0.834)and organ failure(0.831).APACHE II had a high sensitivity for predicting pancreatic necrosis(93.33%),organ failure(92.86%)and ICU admission(92.31%),and also had a high negative predictive value for predicting pancreatic necrosis(96.15%),organ failure(96.15%)and ICU admission(95.83%).Conclusion:APACHE II is a useful prognostic scoring system for predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis and can be a crucial aid in determining the group of patients that have a high chance of need for tertiary care during the course of their illness and therefore need early resuscitation and prompt referral,especially in resource-limited developing countries.

Predicting morbidity and mortality in acute pancreatitis in an Indian population:a comparative study of the BISAP score,Ranson’s score and CT severity index

Objective:Our aim was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of the bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis(BISAP)score in predicting mortality,as well as intermediate markers of severity,in a tertiary care centre in east central India,which caters mostly for an economically underprivileged population.Methods:A total of 119 consecutive cases with acute pancreatitis were admitted to our institution between November 2012 and October 2014.BISAP scores were calculated for all cases,within 24 hours of presentation.Ranson’s score and computed tomography severity index(CTSI)were also established.The respective abilities of the three scoring systems to predict mortality was evaluated using trend and discrimination analysis.The optimal cut-off score for mortality from the receiver operating characteristics(ROC)curve was used to evaluate the development of persistent organ failure and pancreatic necrosis(PNec).Results:Of the 119 cases,42(35.2%)developed organ failure and were classified as severe acute pancreatitis(SAP),47(39.5%)developed PNec,and 12(10.1%)died.The area under the curve(AUC)results for BISAP score in predicting SAP,PNec,and mortality were 0.962,0.934 and 0.846,respectively.Ranson’s score showed a slightly lower accuracy for predicting SAP(AUC 0.956)and mortality(AUC 0.841).CTSI was the most accurate in predicting PNec,with an AUC of 0.958.The sensitivity and specificity of BISAP score,with a cut-off of≥3 in predicting mortality,were 100%and 69.2%,respectively.Conclusions:The BISAP score represents a simple way of identifying,within 24 hours of presentation,patients at greater risk of dying and the development of intermediate markers of severity.This risk stratification method can be utilized to improve clinical care and facilitate enrolment in clinical trials.