Comparison of different risk stratification systems for prediction of acute pancreatitis severity in patients referred to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital.
Üçüncü basamak bir hastanenin acil servisine sevk edilen akut pankreatitli hastaların şiddetinin öngörülmesinde farklı risk sınıflandırma sistemlerinin karşılaştırılması.
Journal
Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES
ISSN: 1307-7945
Titre abrégé: Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101274231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
entrez:
1
7
2022
pubmed:
2
7
2022
medline:
6
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prognostic prediction and estimation of severity at early stages of acute pancreatitis (AP) are crucial to reduce the complication rates and mortality. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the predicting ability of different clinical and radiological scores in AP. We retrospectively collected demographic and clinical data from 159 patients diagnosed with AP admitted to Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Hospital between January 2017 and December 2019. Bedside index for severity AP (BISAP), and acute phys-iology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score at admission, Ranson and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) score at 48 h after admission were calculated. Modified computed tomography severity index (CTSI) was also calculated for each patient. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each scoring system for predicting severe AP, pancreatic necrosis, length of hospital stay, and mortality by determining optimal cutoff points from the (ROC) curves. mGPS and APACHE II had the highest AUC (0.929 and 0.823, respectively) to predict severe AP on admission with the best specificity and sensitivity. In predicting mortality BISAP (with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of 75.0%, 70.9%, 98.2%, and 12.0%, respectively, [AUC: 0.793]) and APACHE II (with a sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of 87.5%, 86.1%, 99.2%, and 25.0%, respectively, [AUC: 0.840]). mGPS can be a valuable tool in predicting the patients more likely to develop severe AP and maybe somewhat better than BISAP score, APACHE II Ranson score, and mCTSI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prognostic prediction and estimation of severity at early stages of acute pancreatitis (AP) are crucial to reduce the complication rates and mortality. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the predicting ability of different clinical and radiological scores in AP.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively collected demographic and clinical data from 159 patients diagnosed with AP admitted to Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Hospital between January 2017 and December 2019. Bedside index for severity AP (BISAP), and acute phys-iology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score at admission, Ranson and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) score at 48 h after admission were calculated. Modified computed tomography severity index (CTSI) was also calculated for each patient. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each scoring system for predicting severe AP, pancreatic necrosis, length of hospital stay, and mortality by determining optimal cutoff points from the (ROC) curves.
RESULTS
RESULTS
mGPS and APACHE II had the highest AUC (0.929 and 0.823, respectively) to predict severe AP on admission with the best specificity and sensitivity. In predicting mortality BISAP (with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of 75.0%, 70.9%, 98.2%, and 12.0%, respectively, [AUC: 0.793]) and APACHE II (with a sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of 87.5%, 86.1%, 99.2%, and 25.0%, respectively, [AUC: 0.840]).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
mGPS can be a valuable tool in predicting the patients more likely to develop severe AP and maybe somewhat better than BISAP score, APACHE II Ranson score, and mCTSI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35775674
doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2021.51892
pmc: PMC10493842
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
967-973Références
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Oct 04;165(7):482-490
pubmed: 27454310
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Sep;38(5):539-48
pubmed: 23859492
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Sep;32(9):1649-1656
pubmed: 28207167
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Feb;97(7):e9654
pubmed: 29443733
Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2018 May;6(2):127-131
pubmed: 29780601
Gastroenterology. 2012 Jun;142(7):1476-82; quiz e15-6
pubmed: 22425589
Int Surg. 2013 Jan-Mar;98(1):6-12
pubmed: 23438270
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 29;10(10):e0142025
pubmed: 26513663
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012 Apr;36(2):162-8
pubmed: 22088974
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:8363561
pubmed: 29434638
Radiology. 2002 Jun;223(3):603-13
pubmed: 12034923
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Apr;98(16):e15275
pubmed: 31008971
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Aug;197(2):386-92
pubmed: 21785084
J Crit Care. 2010 Jun;25(2):358.e9-358.e15
pubmed: 20149591
Gut. 2013 Jan;62(1):102-11
pubmed: 23100216
HPB Surg. 2013;2013:367581
pubmed: 24204087
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014 Sep;21(9):689-694
pubmed: 24850587
Crit Care Med. 1995 Oct;23(10):1638-52
pubmed: 7587228
Pancreas. 2018 Jan;47(1):65-71
pubmed: 29215536
Cureus. 2020 Feb 10;12(2):e6943
pubmed: 32190494
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep;108(9):1400-15; 1416
pubmed: 23896955
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:1834256
pubmed: 27882045
Korean J Intern Med. 2013 May;28(3):322-9
pubmed: 23682226
J Pharm Pharmacol. 2020 Jun;72(6):761-775
pubmed: 32012276
Gut. 1984 Dec;25(12):1340-6
pubmed: 6510766
Arq Gastroenterol. 2019 Sep 30;56(3):280-285
pubmed: 31633726
Pak J Med Sci. 2019 Jul-Aug;35(4):1008-1012
pubmed: 31372133
Minerva Med. 2005 Apr;96(2):109-19
pubmed: 16172580