改良客观性BISAP评分对急性胰腺炎严重程度及预后的预测价值

目的探讨改良客观性BISAP评分(MBISAP)对急性胰腺炎(AP)严重程度及预后的预测价值。方法回顾性分析2018年6月—2020年6月川北医学院附属医院收治的313例AP患者资料,将BISAP评分中精神状态这一主观性指标去除,再根据CTSI(CT严重指数)评分标准,将胰腺坏死程度分为4类(0、0～30%、30%～50%、 50%),并给予相应的赋值(0～3分),MBISAP评分由上述指标赋值相加可得,最高为7分。根据受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线将313例胰腺炎患者分为MBISAP低级别组(MBISAP 3分)和MBISAP高级别组(MBISAP≥3分) 2组。比较2组基线资料、临床结局,非正态分布的计量资料2组间比较采用MannWhitney U秩和检验;计数资料2组间比较采用χ~2检验或Fisher精确检验。ROC曲线下面积(AUC)分析比较MBISAP评分、BISAP评分、CTSI评分对AP病情严重程度、预后的预测价值。结果 2组患者在年龄(Z=-5.480,P 0.001)、病因(χ~2=36.536,P 0.001)、住院时间(Z=-6.038,P 0.001)、病死率(P 0.001)、胰周感染(P 0.001)、多器官功能障碍综合征(MODS)(P 0.001)、BISAP评分(χ~2=215.320,P 0.001)、CTSI评分(P 0.001)之间存在明显差异。随着MBISAP评分的增加,AP病情严重程度、病死率、胰周感染、MODS的发生呈增加趋势(P值均0.001)。在预测SAP方面,MBISAP评分AUC=0.898(95%CI:0.859～0.929,P 0.001),敏感度为71.43%,特异度为90.53%;当MBISAP≥3时为最佳临界值,优于BISAP评分(AUC=0.868,P 0.05)、CTSI评分(AUC=0.827,P 0.05)。在预测AP患者死亡方面,MBISAP评分AUC=0.925 (95%CI:0.890～0.952,P 0.001),敏感度为88.89%,特异度为82.89%;当MBISAP≥3时为最佳临界值,与BISAP评分(AUC=0.915,P 0.05)、CTSI评分(AUC=0.879,P 0.05)相似。在预测AP胰周感染方面,MBISAP评分AUC=0.842(95%CI:0.796～0.880,P 0.001),敏感度为72.22%,特异度为84.07%;当MBISAP 2时为最佳临界值,优于BISAP评分(AUC=0.776,P 0.05),但比CTSI评分(AUC=0.932,P 0.05)较差。在预测AP患者合并MODS方面,MBISAP评分AUC=0.874(95%CI:0.832～0.909,P 0.001),敏感度为76.19%,特异度为84.93%,当MBISAP 2时为最佳临界值,与BISAP评分(AUC=0.855,P 0.05)、CTSI评分(AUC=0.829,P0.05)相似。结论 MBISAP评分在预测AP患者的严重程度及胰周感染方面优于BISAP评分,预测AP患者死亡及MODS方面也有较好的价值,相比BISAP评分能够更准确、客观地评估AP患者情况。     

BISAP评分系统对急性胰腺炎严重程度评估的荟萃分析

目的评估BISAP评分系统在预测急性胰腺炎（AP）严重程度的临床应用价值。方法计算机检索Medline、EMBASE、ScienceDirect、Springerlink、CBM、中国知网、万方以及维普数据库2000年1月至2013年3月的文献,按照严格的纳入标准收集BISAP评分系统预测AP严重程度的文献,采用QUADAS量表进行文献质量评价,利用Meta—Disc1．4统计软件进行异质性分析和定量合成,计算汇总的敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比和受试者特征性工作（ROC）曲线下面积（AUC）,结果均采用95％可信区间（95％CI）表示。结果共纳入文献11篇,包括7篇中文论著和4篇英文论著。按QUADAS量表进行分级,其中A级4篇,B级5篇,C级2篇。6篇文献以BISAP2分为cutoff值、9篇文献以BISAP3分为cutoff值（4篇文献采用两个cutoff值）预测SAP。前者汇总的诊断比值比为8．03（95％C15．66～11．38）,后者为7．49（95％C15．35～10．49）,两组文献均存在中等程度的异质性（I^2=63．3％,P=0．018;I^2=56．1％,P=0．019）。以BISAP2分为cutoff值预测AP严重程度的汇总的敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比和AUC分别为59％（95％CI56％-63％）、82％（95％CI80％-83％）、3．50（95％CI 2．96～4．14）、0．45（95％CI 0．36～0．56）和0．82;以BISAP3分为cutoff值时分别为44％（95％CI41％～47％）、90％（95％CI89％-91％）、4．59（95％CI3．31-6．37）、0．64（95％C10．61-0．68）和0．64。前者有较高的敏感度,较低的特异度,AUC较大;后者敏感度低,特异度高,AUC较小。结论BISAP预测SAP的最佳的cutoff值为2分。其漏诊率较低,且误诊率在可接受范围内,适合在临床应用及推广。     

BISAP评分在重症急性胰腺炎预后的评估价值

目的探讨新型BISAP评分体系(bedside index for severity in AP)对重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)的评估价值。方法选取2008年9月-2012年2月我科收治的重症急性胰腺炎的患者68例,进行BISAP评分。BISAP评分标准包括患者入院24 h内的尿素氮水平、受损精神状态、全身炎症反应综合征、年龄、胸腔积液5项内容。结果 68例SAP患者中,BISAP评分1分的0人(0),2分的21人(30.9%),3分的30人(44.1%),4分的15人(22.1%),5分的2人(2.9%)。68例患者中死亡6例,病死率8.8%,其中BISAP评分4分的死亡4人,占26.7%,BISAP评分5分的死亡2人,占100%,不同评分之间病死率差异有显著统计学意义(P<0.01)。而在相同评分中,不同CT分级对预后没有显著差异。结论 BISAP评分系统作为一种新型的、简便的评分体系可推广应用于SAP预后的评估。     

BISAP评分对急性胰腺炎患者病情严重度及预后评估价值的研究

目的研究BISAP评分系统对急性胰腺炎(AP)患者病情严重程度及预后指标包括住院天数、有无局部并发症、全身并发症、器官衰竭及治疗转归等的评估价值,并与既往经典评分Ranson、CTST进行比较。方法采用回顾性临床研究方法,研究2001年2月-2011年11月上海市第一、第十人民医院及松江区中心医院收治的急性胰腺炎病例707例,对所有急性胰腺炎患者进行BISAP、Ranson和CT评分。受试者工作曲线(ROC曲线)分析三种评分系统对急性胰腺炎严重程度及预后的评估价值。结果 707例急性胰腺炎患者中急性轻型胰腺炎613例,急性重型胰腺炎94例。BISAP评分对急性胰腺炎轻重、局部并发症、全身并发症、器官衰竭及死亡的受试者工作曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.77、0.68、0.83、0.83、0.88。对急性胰腺炎死亡的判断,BISAP及Ranson评分均有较好的独立预测价值,优于CTSI评分。结论 BISAP评分对急性胰腺炎轻重分型、局部并发症、全身并发症和器官衰竭的发生及死亡均有较强的预测价值,与平均住院天数呈正相关;对急性胰腺炎死亡有独立预测价值,且时效性强,可以在急性胰腺炎发病早期发现重症趋势。     

急性胰腺炎严重程度临床应用评分进展

急性胰腺炎是消化系统常见疾病之一,包括急性轻型胰腺炎及急性重症胰腺炎。重症者病情凶险,死亡率高。早期发现疾病重症趋势能更好地指导临床治疗。本文就急性胰腺炎严重程度的临床应用评分进展进行综述。     

急性胰腺炎床旁严重度指数和无害性胰腺炎评分对急性胰腺炎预后的评估价值

目的 评价急性胰腺炎床旁严重度指数(BISAP)与无害性胰腺炎评分(HAPS)评估急性胰腺炎(AP)预后的价值.方法 回顾性分析2003年1月至2010年12月中山大学附属第一医院收治的442例AP患者资料,计算BISAP和HAP评分,绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线并计算曲线下面积(AUC),分析它们对AP严重度、局部并发症、器官功能不全、预后的评估价值,并与传统的Ranson评分进行比较.结果 442例AP患者中,73例(16.5％)为重症急性胰腺炎(SAP).BISAP评分预测SAP、局部并发症、器官功能不全、病死结局的AUC分别是0.90(95％ CI:0.86～ 0.93)、0.82(95％ CI:0.76～0.89)、0.93(95％ CI:0.89 ～0.96)、0.93(95％ CI:0.87 ～0.98).BISAP评分和Ranson评分上述4项指标的AUC差异无统计学意义.HAP评分预测轻症急性胰腺炎(MAP)的特异性为85％,阳性预测值95％,AUC为0.73(95％CI:0.67 ～ 0.79).将BISAP和HAP评分相结合,2种评分均异常的患者发生不良结局的风险逐渐升高.结论 BISAP评分对AP预后的评估价值与Ranson评分相当,但更为简便.HAP评分能简单且准确地预测MAP的预后,BISAP和HAP评分相结合有助于更好地判断AP患者的预后.     

HAP评分联合BISAP评分及D-二聚体检测对重症急性胰腺炎有较高的预后评估价值

目的：探讨HAP评分联合急性胰腺炎严重程度床边指数（BISAP）评分及血浆D-二聚体水平对重症急性胰腺炎（SAP）预后评估的价值。方法：选取2017年6月-2018年12月在东莞市人民医院收治的急性胰腺炎（AP组）患者180例,其中,轻症急性胰腺炎（MAP组）56例,中度重症急性胰腺炎（MSAP组）60例,SAP（SAP组）64例。根据住院期间预后情况分为预后良好组（33例）和预后不良组（31例）。180例健康体检者作为对照组。对AP患者进行无害性胰腺炎（HAP）评分、BISAP评分;免疫比浊法检测血浆D-二聚体水平;采用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线评估HAP评分、BISAP评分及血浆D-二聚体水平对SAP患者预后评估的价值;Z检验比较预后价值。结果：AP组患者血浆D-二聚体水平较对照组明显升高（P＜0.05）;随着AP病情的加重,患者HAP评分、BISAP评分及血浆D-二聚体水平逐渐升高（P均＜0.05）。预后不良组SAP患者HAP评分、BISAP评分及血浆D-二聚体水平较预后良好组明显升高（P均＜0.05）;HAP评分、BISAP评分、血浆D-二聚体水平单独预测SAP患者不良预后的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.826（95%CI：0.724~0.928）、0.838（95%CI：0.741~0.935）、0.831（95%CI：0.730~0.932）,截断值分别为1.765、2.420、0.950mg/L,敏感度分别为74.2%、87.1%、80.6%,特异性分别为75.8%、69.7%、75.8%;三者联合预测的ROC曲线下面积为0.952（95%CI：0.905~0.999）,敏感度为96.8%,特异性为81.8%;联合预测SAP患者不良预后与单独预测比较,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论：SAP患者HAP评分、BISAP评分及血浆D-二聚体水平明显升高,三者联合检测对SAP具有较高的预后评估价值。     

BISAP评分系统对重症急性胰腺炎的评估价值

目的 探讨新型BISAP评分体系(bedside index for severity in AP)对重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)的评估价值。方法 选取临床拟诊为SAP的患者68例,分别进行BISAP、APACHEⅡ、Ranson以及CTSI评分。BISAP评分标准包括患者入院24h内的尿素氮水平、受损精神状态、全身炎症反应综合征、年龄、胸腔积液5项内容。以BISAP≥3分、APACHEⅡ≥8分、Ranson≥3分、CTSI≥3分为SAP的评估标准,分析这几种评分系统评估SAP的正确率。结果 68例患者中,BISAP≥3分者43例,占63.2％;APACHEⅡ≥8分者41例,占60.3％;Ranson≥3分者41例,占60.3％;CTSI≥3分者46例,占67.6％。BISAP评分系统与APACHEⅡ评分系统、Ranson评分系统以及CTSI评分系统比较,评估SAP的正确率均无显著性统计学差异。结论 BISAP评分系统作为一种新型的、简便的评分体系可推广应用于SAP的评估。     

BISAPG评分对急性胰腺炎严重程度的预测价值

目的 探讨急性胰腺炎严重程度床边指数(BISAP)评分联合空腹血糖(fasting blood glucose, FBG)水平(BISAPG)对急性胰腺炎(AP)严重程度的预测价值。方法 回顾性分析2020年8月至2022年8月在武汉大学人民医院确诊为AP的患者264例,其中诊断为重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)的患者96例,非重症急性胰腺炎(NSAP)168例。收集患者临床相关数据、实验室数据、BISAP评分和入院24小时内FBG。采用多因素Logistic回归模型分析SAP发生的危险因素。用Spearman相关分析法分析BISAP评分和FBG之间的关系。采用受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)评估BISAP评分、FBG及BISAPG评分对AP严重程度的预测价值。用校准曲线以及决策曲线分析分别评估BISAPG评分拟合度和临床实用性。结果 SAP组Alb、A/G、RBC值均小于NSAP组,FBG、WBC、AMY、LIPA、PCT、CRP及BISAP评分均大于NSAP组(P<0.05),两组在TG、BMI指数、性别间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。多因素分析显示,BISAP评分及入院24小时内...     

血清脂肪酶联合Ranson或BISAP评分系统诊断急性胰腺炎严重程度的效果分析

目的探讨血清脂肪酶联合Ranson或BISAP评分系统在急性胰腺炎严重程度中的诊断意义。方法选取2012年2月-2015年2月惠东县第二人民医院收治的急性胰腺炎患者314例,分为轻症急性胰腺炎(MAP)组(n=202)和重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)组(n=112)。对所有患者分别进行血清脂肪酶检测、Ranson评分、BISAP评分、脂肪酶联合Ranson或BISAP评分。计量资料组间比较采用t检验,计数资料组间比较采用χ2检验,不同评估方法间曲线下面积(AUC)、约登指数比较采用Z检验。结果 SAP患者的血清脂肪酶水平、Ranson评分值、BISAP评分值均显著高于MAP患者,差异均有统计学意义(t值分别为14.89、11.89、5.12,P值分别为0.003、0.007、0.037)。预测器官功能衰竭、胰腺坏死和病死率的AUC中,脂肪酶联合BISAP评分系统均高于BISAP评分,差异均有统计学意义(Z值分别为7.54、7.11、7.57,P值分别为0.033、0.031、0.030);脂肪酶联合Ranson评分系统均高于Ranson评分,差异均有统计学意义(Z值分别为5.23、5.78、6.18,P值分别为0.037、0.034、0.032);脂肪酶联合BISAP评分系统均高于脂肪酶联合Ranson评分系统,差异均有统计学意义(Z值分别为13.55、8.33、7.66,P值分别为0.005、0.029、0.031)。脂肪酶联合Ranson评分系统预测器官功能衰竭、胰腺坏死和病死率的约登指数均高于Ranson评分,差异均有统计学意义(Z值分别为5.17、6.89、7.35,P值分别为0.038、0.032、0.027);脂肪酶联合BISAP评分系统的约登指数均高于BISAP评分,差异均有统计学意义(Z值分别为7.54、7.22、9.57,P值分别为0.030、0.031、0.025),脂肪酶联合BISAP评分系统的约登指数均高于脂肪酶联合Ranson评分系统,差异均有统计学意义(Z值分别为10.11、10.23、13.24,P值分别为0.020、0.019、0.010)。结论脂肪酶联合Ranson或BISAP评分系统在诊断急性胰腺炎严重程度时较单独采用Ranson评分系统、BISAP评分系统准确性高,其中脂肪酶联合BISAP评分系统敏感性更高,更具有临床诊断价值。     

新CT评分系统预测急性胰腺炎病情严重程度的临床研究

目的 在综合急性胰腺炎(AP)患者胰腺外炎症征象及胰腺坏死程度基础上,建立一种新CT评分系统--胰腺外炎症和胰腺坏死CT指数(EPIPN)评分系统.以初步探讨其预测AP病情严重程度和预后的诊断价值.方法 回顾分析2006年8月至2007年12月住院确诊的77例AP患者的临床资料,包括年龄、性别、病因、起病72 h C反应蛋白(CRP)水平、Ranson评分、人院48 h时APACHEⅡ评分,器官衰竭发生情况、腹痛消失时间、住院时间等.所有患者人院后2～3 d行增强CT检查,获得CT严重指数(CTSI)评分和EPIPN评分,CTSI≥7分为重症AP(SAP),EPIPN>5分为SAP.应用ROC曲线比较EPIPN和CTSI预测AP病情严重程度的诊断效力,初步分析EPlPN和CTSI与AP临床预后指标的相关性.结果 77例患者中男34例,女43例,平均年龄51.79岁(22～92岁).胆源性63例,高血脂6例,酒精性1例,原因不明7例.14例(18.2%)患者曾发生器官衰竭.EPIPN和CTSI预测SAP的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.82(95%可信区间0.73～0.91)、0.72(95%可信区间0.59～0.86),CTSI≥7预测SAP的灵敏度、特异度分别为80.4%和55%,EPIPN>5预测SAP的灵敏度、特异度分别为91.3%和63%.EPIPN与AP患者住院时间、APACHEⅡ评分、CRP有良好的相关性.结论 EPIPN可准确预测和评估AP病情严重程度和预后,其诊断效力优于CTSI.EPIPN简便实用,具有良好的临床应用价值.     

Value of adipokines in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis: Comprehensive review

AIM: To analyze the prognostic value of adipokines in predicting the course, complications and fatal outcome of acute pancreatitis (AP).METHODS: We performed the search of PubMed database and the systemic analysis of the literature for both experimental and human studies on prognostic value of adipokines in AP for period 2002-2012. Only the papers that described the use of adipokines for prediction of severity and/or complications of AP were selected for further analysis. Each article had to contain information about the levels of measured adipokines, diagnosis and verification of AP, to specify presence of pancreatic necrosis, organ dysfunction and/or mortality rates. From the very beginning, study was carried out adhering to the PRISMA checklist and flowchart for systemic reviews. To assess quality of all included human studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used. Because of the high heterogeneity between the studies, it was decided to refrain from the statistical processing or meta-analysis of the available data.RESULTS: Nine human and three experimental studies were included into review. In experimental studies significant differences between leptin concentrations at 24 and 48 h in control, acute edematous and acute necrotizing pancreatitis groups were found (P = 0.027 and P < 0.001). In human studies significant differences between leptin and resitin concentrations in control and acute pancreatitis groups were found. 1-3 d serum adiponectin threshold of 4.5 μg/mL correctly classified the severity of 81% of patients with AP. This threshold yielded a sensitivity of 70%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 64%, negative predictive value88% (area under curve 0.75). Resistin and visfatin concentrations differ significantly between mild and severe acute pancreatitis groups, they correlate with severity of disease, need for interventions and outcome. Both adipokines are good markers for parapancreatic necrosis and the cut-off values of 11.9 ng/mL and 1.8 ng/mL respectively predict the high ranges of radiological scores. However, the review revealed that all nine human studies with adipokines are very different in terms of methodology and objectives, so it is difficult to generalize their results. It seems that concentrations of the leptin and resistin increases significantly in patients with acute pancreatitis compared with controls. Serum levels of adiponectin, visfatin and especially resitin (positive correlation with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Ranson and C-reactive protein) are significantly different in mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis patients, so, they can serve as a markers for the disease severity prediction. Resistin and visfatin can also be used for pancreatic and parapancreatic necrosis prediction, interventions needs and possible, outcome.CONCLUSION: High levels of adipokines could allow for prediction of a severe disease course and outcome even in small pancreatic lesions on computed tomography scans.     

三种评分标准对急性胰腺炎病情和预后的评估作用

目的 探讨Ranson、CT严重指数(CTSI)和急性胰腺炎严重程度床边指数(BISAP)三种评分系统在判断急性胰腺炎(AP)病情和预后中的价值.方法 回顾性分析2008年1月至2011年4月共计503例确诊AP患者,包括轻症急性胰腺炎(MAP) 356例,重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)147例,应用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线比较Ranson、CTSI和BISAP评分系统对AP病情严重度的评估价值和对病情预后的预测价值.将SAP分为无脏器功能衰竭组和脏器功能衰竭组,比较3种评分系统对AP并发脏器功能衰竭的预测价值.结果 MAP组和SAP组间的Ranson、CTSI和BISAP评分分值差异均有统计学意义(x2分别为236.88、126.24和101.27,P＜0.01),Ranson评分系统的敏感度(97.3％)和ROC曲线下面积(AUC)值(0.92)最大.在147例SAP患者的无脏器功能衰竭组和脏器功能衰竭组中,Ranson和BISAP评分的差异均有统计学意义(x2分别为17.67和26.12,P＜0.01),敏感度均为100％,特异度分别为96％和85％,BISAP评分的AUC值最大(0.80).在病情改善组和病情恶化组,Ranson和BISAP评分的分值差异具有统计学意义(x2分别为9.53和10.19,P＜0.05),BISAP评分系统的AUC值最大(0.74).结论 3种评分系统均可用于判断AP病情的严重程度.对于SAP并发脏器功能衰竭的风险和预后的判断,BISAP评分优于Ranson评分.BISAP评分简便、易行,为AP临床病情的判断提供了重要手段.     

Pneumonia severity index in the immunocompromised

BACKGROUND

The pneumonia severity index (PSI) accounts for many comorbidities, but not immunosuppression.

OBJECTIVES

To document the utility of the PSI to predict mortality in immunocompromised patients (IP) with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

Charts of 284 patients with immunosuppression and CAP were reviewed, and these patients were compared with a contemporary sample of non-IP with CAP. The ability of the PSI to predict mortality was assessed by using multiple logistic regression. Discrimination of the PSI was studied by using the concordance index.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine of 284 IP died. Mortality varied according to the etiology of the immunosuppression. Patients with HIV, solid organ transplantation or treatment with immunosuppressive drugs (n=118) had a low in-hospital mortality (4.3%) and were classified as low risk. IP with hematological malignancies, chemotherapy, chest radiation or marrow transplantation (n=166) had a high mortality (20%) and were classified as high risk. Compared with non-IP, low-risk IP had similar PSI-controlled mortality (OR=0.9, P=0.80), whereas high-risk IP had significantly greater mortality (OR=2.8, P<0.0001). The concordance index revealed similar discrimination for the PSI in low-risk IP (0.77) and in non-IP (0.7), but inferior discrimination in high-risk patients (0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CAP and immunosuppression can be divided into low-risk and high-risk groups. The low-risk IP have mortality similar to non-IP and can be risk stratified by using the PSI.     

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.     

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 contrast-enhanced 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 > or =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 > or =5 significantly correlated with death, complication present, and prolonged length of stay. Patients with a CTSI > or =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 > or =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.