Next Article in Journal
A Bibliometric Analysis (2010–2020) of the Dental Scientific Literature on Chemo-Mechanical Methods of Caries Removal Using Carisolv and BRIX3000
Next Article in Special Issue
Pancreas Involvement of Extranodal Natural Killer/T-Cell Lymphoma, Nasal Type, Presenting as Acute Pancreatitis: A Case Report
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Intra-Abdominal Hypertension: A Systemic Complication of Severe Acute Pancreatitis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 58
Issue 6
10.3390/medicina58060787
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Predicting Severity of Acute Pancreatitis

by
Dong Wook Lee
and
Chang Min Cho
*
Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41944, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2022, 58(6), 787; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060787
Submission received: 24 April 2022 / Revised: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 June 2022 / Published: 11 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Acute pancreatitis has a diverse etiology and natural history, and some patients have severe complications with a high risk of mortality. The prediction of the severity of acute pancreatitis should be achieved by a careful ongoing clinical assessment coupled with the use of a multiple-factor scoring system and imaging studies. Over the past 40 years, various scoring systems have been suggested to predict the severity of acute pancreatitis. However, there is no definite and ideal scoring system with a high sensitivity and specificity. The interest in new biological markers and predictive models for identifying severe acute pancreatitis testifies to the continued clinical importance of early severity prediction. Although contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) is considered the gold standard for diagnosing pancreatic necrosis, early scanning for the prediction of severity is limited because the full extent of pancreatic necrosis may not develop within the first 48 h of presentation. This article provides an overview of the available scoring systems and biochemical markers for predicting severe acute pancreatitis, with a focus on their characteristics and limitations.

1. Introduction

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is the development of acute inflammation in the pancreas and is one of the most common disease entities in gastroenterology that requires hospital admission [1]. AP is diagnosed when two or more of the following three findings are satisfied [1,2]: (1) upper abdominal pain suggestive of pancreatitis, excluding pain from other conditions, such as gastric/duodenal ulcer perforation or aortic dissection, myocardial infarction, etc.; (2) an increased level of serum amylase or lipase exceeding the upper limit of normal values by more than three-fold; (3) findings of image studies, such as ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suggestive of AP. According to the Atlanta classification revised in 2012, AP can be classified into the following categories according to severity: mild, moderately severe, and severe (Table 1). Mild AP is characterized by a lack of organ failure and no local or systemic complications. Moderately severe AP is indicated by transient organ failure (resolves within 48 h) and/or local or systemic complications. Lastly, severe AP is characterized by persistent organ failure that may involve one or more organs [1]. The mortality rate of AP is between 3–10%; however, the mortality rate of severe AP increases to 36–50% [3,4] and if there is no adequate treatment in mild AP, it can progress to severe AP [5]. Therefore, a prompt and accurate prediction and response to severe AP are essential for improving the prognosis of patients. In this review, various factors and scales associated with severity predictions of AP are discussed.

2. Predictors Using Patient’s Factors

To predict the severity of AP, the accurate obtaining of details of medical history and physical examination, as well as a review of systems, must be performed. Among the various etiologies that cause AP, alcohol leads to more severe AP and increases the risk of pancreatic necrosis requiring intubation [6,7]. It is argued that hypertriglyceridemia (hyperTG)-induced AP is more severe than AP caused by other etiologies. In a systematic review, the severity of hyperTG-induced AP is compared with AP caused by other etiologies, and six studies showed that hyperTG-induced AP was more severe, while three studies reported no difference in severity according to etiology [8]. However, the criteria for measuring the severity of AP were different in each study, and there were several case series or case–control studies without a randomized controlled trial in the included studies. As such, no definite conclusions have been reached yet. Several studies investigated the relationship between AP and obesity. In a meta-analysis study, severe AP was more frequently observed in patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher (odds ratio (OR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–4.6), and they had a significantly greater risk of local and systemic complications (local OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.4–6.6; systemic OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4–3.8) [9]. In particular, when BMI > 25, the risk of severe AP increases, while mortality does not increase. In contrast, in patients with BMI > 30, both the risk and mortality of severe AP are increased [10]. Additionally, other studies have shown that hypertension increases the risk of renal failure, which leads to a greater risk of severe AP and an increased length of hospitalization [11]. Steatohepatitis is also associated with the risk and severity of AP [12].
AP is closely related with cytokines, and several studies actively investigated the relationship between the severity of AP and genetic factors generating cytokines. GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1, CASP7, CASP8, CASP9, CASP10, LTL, TNFRSF1B and TP53 genes are associated with apoptosis and are susceptible to AP [13]. Follow-up studies are currently actively investigating possible individualized treatment and prevention strategies for AP.

3. Predictors Using Biochemical Findings

3.1. Hematocrit

The third-space loss of intravascular fluid is induced in AP, which can lead to hemoconcentration and is clinically confirmed by an elevated hematocrit level. In studies that used hematocrit to predict the severity of AP, the cut-off value and the time of blood sampling were different for each study. However, studies commonly report that patients with no increased hematocrit at the time of admission, and in the first 24 h after admission, show a better prognosis [14,15].

3.2. Blood Urea Nitrogen/Creatinine

In a study of 5819 patients from 69 institutions, mortality increased when blood urea nitrogen (BUN) increased by more than 5 mg/dL within 24 h of hospitalization for AP [16]. Another study reported that mortality increased when the serum level of BUN was greater than 20 mg/dL at the time of hospitalization [17]. BUN reflects the initial condition of the patient and is a useful indicator for the appropriateness of initial resuscitation. In a prospective study of 129 patients with AP, pancreatic necrosis was more frequent in patients with levels of serum creatinine greater than 1.8 mg/dL in blood tests performed within the initial 48 h [18].

3.3. C-Reactive Protein

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute-phase reactant synthesized in hepatocytes after stimulation by serum interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6. CRP is a single indicator, commonly used to evaluate the severity of AP. CRP measured 48 h after the onset of symptoms can predict the outcome of AP [19], and CRP (cut-off value 150 mg/L) can be used to distinguish between mild and severe AP with 86% sensitivity and 61% specificity [20,21]. However, its accuracy is low within the first 48 h of symptom onset, and as CRP is synthesized in the liver from serum cytokine actions, it can be underestimated in patients with liver disease due to alcoholism or obesity, which is common in AP [22]. Furthermore, a recent Cochrane review failed to prove the role of CRP in the diagnosis of pancreas necrosis [23]. Most guidelines on AP advise against the use of a single marker to triage patients; however, a CRP level more than 150 mg/dl at 48 h after admission can predict a worse prognosis of AP [24].

3.4. Cytokines

Various cytokines are involved in the development of AP and multi-organ failure. Studies attempted to predict the severity of AP using concentrations of different cytokines. In one study, the combination of IL-10 and serum calcium predicted organ failure in a relatively accurate manner (sensitivity 88%, specificity 93%) [25]. Furthermore, there is a meta-analysis about early biomarkers in AP and IL-6 (more than 50 pg/mL) playing a role in the early prediction of progression to moderately severe or severe AP (sensitivity 87%, specificity 88%) [26]. Although other biomarkers such as IL-8 and the tumor necrosis factor α were used to predict the severity of AP, there are some limitations to overcome, such as strong evidence based on large-scale studies and the lack of methods to easily measure these cytokines. Thus, these limitations interfere with the clinical implications of cytokines for predicting AP severity [27,28].

3.5. Others

Procalcitonin is detected in the serum of patients with severe bacterial or fungal infections and in patients with multi-organ failure. Several studies report that procalcitonin at the time of hospitalization is a better predictor of AP severity than the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination (APACHE) II score or CRP level [29,30]. In addition, quantitative test results show that trypsinogen-2 in the urine is significantly higher in patients with severe AP [31,32], and measuring trypsinogen activation peptide (TAP) in the urine of patients was helpful in predicting the severity of AP within 24 h of onset [21]. However, there is a lack of follow-up studies to support these findings, and there are no methods to easily measure the levels of these factors in clinical settings.

4. Predictors Using Radiologic Image

4.1. Computed Tomography

Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT is widely used to assess complications, and the Balthazar grade is the most commonly used score to evaluate AP severity (Table 2) [33]. In addition, CT is useful in evaluating the severity of AP as findings without contrast enhancement indicate pancreatic necrosis [34]. Based on these characteristics, scoring the Balthazar grade and using pancreatic necrosis as a CT severity index has been suggested as an important evaluation method for assessing AP severity (Table 3) [35]. In that study, a CT severity score of 0-3 points was associated with a 3% mortality rate, while a score of 7–10 points increased the mortality rate to 17%. Mortele et al. simplified the CT finding and pancreatic necrosis levels into three grades and introduced a modified CT severity index with extrapancreatic complications (Table 3). This new index has a higher accuracy in predicting hospitalization period, surgical treatment, infection and organ failure [36].
Several studies investigated other findings for CT (e.g., pleural effusion, body composition) as predictors of AP. Heller et al. reported that pleural effusion was observed in 84.2% of patients with severe AP, while it was observed in only 8.6% of those with mild AP [37]. Furthermore, the pleural effusion volume was associated with the duration of admission, and CRP levels showed the possibility of a reliable radiologic predictor of the severity of AP [38]. Subcutaneous or visceral adipose tissue, skeletal muscle mass or density, and mean muscle attenuation were evaluated in the context of CT defined body composition analysis, and reported promising results for the prediction of AP severity; however, a lack of prospective studies of different races is hurdle to overcome [39,40].
Although CT is an important test, it has several limitations. The CT severity index has the highest accuracy at 6–10 days from the onset of AP. In particular, necrosis of the pancreas is often not observed in CT images within 48 h of onset. Therefore, CT may not be an adequate method to evaluate the severity of the early phase of AP. Furthermore, possible complications caused by the contrast agents must be considered. Therefore, selective CT examination is recommended.

4.2. Others

Trans-abdominal ultrasonography is limited for evaluating pancreatic necrosis. However, as contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was recently developed, studies evaluating the blood supply or necrosis of the pancreas have been reported [41,42]. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) can be useful for observing the structure and parenchymal changes of the pancreas. In particular, EUS is useful in evaluating the etiology of AP, such as biliary AP [43,44], and there is a study showing that radial EUS can be helpful in predicting the severity of biliary AP with a sensitivity of 89.7% and specificity of 84.2% [45]. However, no follow-up studies have demonstrated the superiority of EUS compared with CT, and the role of EUS in predicting AP severity is limited.
MRI is useful for evaluating not only necrosis, but also local complications, such as bleeding, fluid collection, pseudocysts, abscesses, and pseudoaneurysms [46]. Moreover, peripancreatic vascular changes or the severity of vascular involvement is positively correlated with the severity of AP [47]. However, MRI requires patients’ to co-operate and hold their breath to prevent motion artifacts, and MRI is a time-consuming modality. Thus, there are limitations to practically performing MRI in the clinical field.

5. Predictors Using Scoring System

5.1. Ranson Score

The Ranson score was developed for the evaluation of the severe status in patients with AP. Alcoholic AP is evaluated using a total of five factors at the time of admission and six factors after 48 h of hospitalization. Biliary AP is assessed using five factors at the time of admission and five factors after 48 h of hospitalization (Table 4) [48,49]. The Ranson score has area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.84, 0.56, 0.80 and 0.810 for the prediction of AP organ failure, necrosis, mortality and severity, respectively. However, as the Ranson score must be evaluated at the time of admission as well as after 48 h of hospitalization, it has limited ability in predicting severity in patients with AP at the time of admission, which leads to delayed initial treatment.

5.2. Glasgow Score

Although the Ranson score allows for a relatively accurate prediction of AP severity, it is complex and has many application items. Therefore, an alternative scoring system, the Glasgow system, was introduced. The Glasgow score can be evaluated within 48 h of hospitalization and measures serum albumin instead of hematocrit, base deficit, and fluid sequestration (Table 5) [50]. Unlike the Ranson score that is applied differently according to the cause of AP, the Glasgow score is universally applied for all causes. It is simple to use and has a similar accuracy to that of the Ranson score, with an AUC of 0.78 for the prediction of AP severity [51].

5.3. APACHE II Score

The APACHE II score is not an evaluation for a specific disease. Instead, the APACHE II score is an indicator used to classify patients who need to be treated in an intensive care unit (ICU), and evaluates a total of 12 clinical indicators, including age, underlying diseases, and mentality at admission [52]. In patients with an APACHE II score of less than eight points, mortality was lower than 4%. However, if the APACHE II score was higher than eight points, the mortality rate was between 11 and 18%. The APACHE II score is an effective scale for predicting severe AP; however, this scoring system is complicated and inconvenient. Additionally, the APACHE II score was excessively high in older age groups.
As obesity is reported as an important factor for predicting the mortality of AP, a new APACHE-O score system was proposed after the addition of BMI to the previous APACHE II score; however, the APACHE-O score did not have an improved accuracy compared to APACHE II [53,54].

5.4. Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis

The bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP) score predicts severity based on five factors measured 24 h after hospitalization (Table 6). When no factor is satisfied, mortality is less than 1%; however, mortality increases beyond 22% when all five factors are satisfied [55]. In a study of 18,256 patients, the BISAP score had a similar accuracy to APACHE II (BISAP AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.79–0.84 versus APACHE II AUC: 0.83, 95% CI 0.80–0.85) [55]. Another prospective study shows that the risk of organ failure and pancreatic necrosis significantly increased to 7.4 (95% CI 2.8-19.5) and 3.8 (95% CI, 1.8–8.5), respectively, when the BISAP score was three points or higher [56]. BISAP can predict severity, organ failure and mortality in AP very well, and to the same level as other scoring systems; therefore, it is proven to be a good predictor, mainly in Western environments [57].

5.5. Japanese Severity Score

The Japanese severity score (JSS) was first proposed in 1998 and modified in 2002. This scoring system classifies severity from stage 0 to stage 4, with the total score ranging from 0 to 27 points (Table 7) [58]. JSS has a similar accuracy to the Ranson score in predicting mortality and severity; however, it is complicated and limited in clinical use.

5.6. Harmless Acute Pancreatitis Score

The harmless acute pancreatitis score (HAPS) is another system that consists of rebound abdominal tenderness and/or guarding, serum hematocrit and creatinine levels [59]. Thus, it is a simple, reproducible system without complicated tests and can be investigated and interpreted within 1 h of admission. According to HAPS, patients with AP are less likely to progress to severe AP if rebound tenderness is not present and serum creatinine and hematocrit are within the normal range at admission. A prospective validation study reported that HAPS could predict a non-severe disease course with high specificity (97%) and positive predictive value (98%) [59]. In reality, HAPS can be applied in low-volume medical centers, which should triage the patients who need to be transferred to higher referral centers for more aggressive treatment in an ICU.

5.7. Comparison of Scoring Systems

The Ranson score system was first developed to predict AP severity, followed by the Glasgow score, the modified version of the Ranson score. Subsequently, APACHE II, the BISAP score and JSS were developed. The accuracy of predicting severe AP was 0.81–0.88 when the Ranson score was 3 or more and 0.73–0.78 when the Glasgow score was 2 or more [60]. The AUC is 0.80–0.89 with an APACHE II score greater than seven points and 0.79–0.88 with a BISAP score greater than three points [60]. Some studies stated that the Glasgow score better predicts the severity of AP than APACHE II and the Ranson score. In contrast, other studies reported that the BISAP score shows a similar or superior accuracy in predicting the mortality compared with APACHE II and the Ranson score [61,62]. The comparison of scoring systems is summarized in Table 8.

6. Predictors Using Artificial Intelligence

There are two studies that compare the accuracy of machine learning (ML) models to APACHE II in predicting the severity of AP. In both studies, the ML model had a higher accuracy than APACHE II (AUC 0.92 vs. 0.63, 0.82 vs. 0.74) [63,64]. Mofidi et al. investigated the prediction of the severity of AP using clinical and laboratory findings in patients with AP, and reported a higher accuracy in severity, multi-organ failure and mortality prediction compared with APACHE II or the Glasgow score [65]. Halonen et al. reported that the artificial neural network model is more accurate in predicting the severity of AP than the Ranson score (AUC 0.847 vs. 0.655) but has no difference in accuracy compared with APACHE II (AUC 0.817) [66]. Likewise, there is a possibility for improvement in the prediction of the severity of AP using artificial intelligence models. However, algorithms should be standardized in artificial intelligence and validated through large-scale randomized trials.

7. Conclusions

Despite intense and various studies on the pathophysiology of AP, overall mortality rates have not significantly improved. This suggests that an early diagnosis and appropriate prediction of the severity of AP are of utmost importance. In the 40 years since the Ranson score system was first introduced, various scoring systems (such as the Glasgow score, APACHE, BISAP, JSS, and HAPS) have been suggested; however, to date, none can accurately predict severity at an early stage, are non-invasive, or easy to use in patients. Additionally, although CRP is widely used as a single biochemical marker, it has a poor ability to predict severity within 48 h of AP onset. There is also a lack of evidence regarding the use of procalcitonin and other cytokines to predict the severity in patients with AP. CT is an essential test for detecting pancreatic necrosis; however, necrosis cannot be observed within 48 h.
In these limited environments, patients with AP should initially be assessed using the BISAP score, and other scoring systems can also be considered as supplementary applications. If patients with AP visit low-volume medical centers or hospitals without an ICU, HAPS can be applied to determine the requirement for transfer to higher referral centers.
In future, it is important that a consensus is reached in each society and gathered to develop an ideal scoring system for predicting and evaluating severity in patients with AP. Moreover, the evolution of new technologies for genetic, transcriptomic and proteomic profiles is expected to access the specific patterns of various pathophysiologic processes in AP through which novel biomarkers that accurately reflect patient conditions can be developed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M.C.; methodology, D.W.L.; investigation, C.M.C. and D.W.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.W.L.; writing—review and editing, C.M.C.; supervision, C.M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Banks, P.A.; Bollen, T.L.; Dervenis, C.; Gooszen, H.G.; Johnson, C.D.; Sarr, M.G.; Tsiotos, G.G.; Vege, S.S.; Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working Group. Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: Revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013, 62, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Working Group IAP/APA Acute Pancreatitis Guidelines. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2013, 13 (Suppl. 2), e1–e15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Párniczky, A.; Kui, B.; Szentesi, A.; Balazs, A.; Szucs, A.; Moszbacher, D.; Czimmer, J.; Sarlos, P.; Bajor, J.; Godi, S.; et al. Prospective, multicentre, nationwide clinical data from 600 cases of acute pancreatitis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Silva-Vaz, P.; Abrantes, A.M.; Castelo-Branco, M.; Gouveia, A.; Botelho, M.F.; Tralhão, J.G. Murine models of acute pancreatitis: A critical appraisal of clinical relevance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hirota, M.; Takada, T.; Kawarada, Y.; Hirata, K.; Mayumi, T.; Yoshida, M.; Sekimoto, M.; Kimura, Y.; Takeda, K.; Isaji, S.; et al. JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Severity assessment of acute pancreatitis. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006, 13, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Frey, C.F.; Zhou, H.; Harvey, D.J.; White, R.H. The incidence and case-fatality rates of acute biliary, alcoholic, and idiopathic pancreatitis in California, 1994–2001. Pancreas 2006, 33, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Papachristou, G.I.; Papachristou, D.J.; Morinville, V.D.; Slivka, A.; Whitcomb, D.C. Chronic alcohol consumption is a major risk factor for pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 2605–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Carr, R.A.; Rejowski, B.J.; Cote, G.A.; Pitt, H.A.; Zyromski, N.J. Systematic review of hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis: A more virulent etiology? Pancreatology 2016, 16, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Martínez, J.; Johnson, C.D.; Sánchez-Payá, J.; Madaria, E.; Robles-Diaz, G.; Perez-Mateo, M. Obesity is a definitive risk factor of severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis: An updated meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2006, 6, 206–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dobszai, D.; Mátrai, P.; Gyöngyi, Z.; Csupor, D.; Bajor, J.; Eross, B.; Miko, A.; Szako, L.; Meczker, A.; Hagendorn, R.; et al. Body-mass index correlates with severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis: A meta-analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 729–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Szentesi, A.; Párniczky, A.; Vincze, Á.; Bajor, J.; Godi, S.; Sarlos, P.; Gede, N.; Izbeki, F.; Halasz, A.; Marta, K.; et al. Multiple hits in acute pancreatitis: Components of metabolic syndrome synergize each other’s deteriorating effects. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Reddy, S.K.; Zhan, M.; Alexander, H.R.; El-Kamary, S.S. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with benign gastrointestinal disorders. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 19, 8301–8311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. D’ Oliveira Martins, F.; Gomes, B.C.; Rodrigues, A.S.; Rueff, J. Genetic susceptibility in acute pancreatitis: Genotyping of GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1, CASP7, CASP8, CASP9, CASP10, LTA, TNFRSF1B, and TP53 gene variants. Pancreas 2017, 46, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Baillargeon, J.D.; Orav, J.; Ramagopal, V.; Tenner, S.M.; Banks, P.A. Hemoconcentration as an early risk factor for necrotizing pancreatitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1998, 93, 2130–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lankisch, P.G.; Mahlke, R.; Blum, T.; Bruns, A.; Bruns, D.; Maisonneuve, P.; Lowenfels, A.B. Hemoconcentration: An early marker of severe and/or necrotizing pancreatitis? A critical appraisal. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2001, 96, 2081–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wu, B.U.; Johannes, R.S.; Sun, X.; Conwell, D.L.; Banks, P.A. Early changes in blood urea nitrogen predict mortality in acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2009, 137, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, B.U.; Bakker, O.J.; Papachristou, G.I.; Besselink, M.G.; Repas, K.; van Santvoort, H.C.; Muddana, V.; Singh, V.K.; Whitcomb, D.C.; Gooszen, H.G.; et al. Blood urea nitrogen in the early assessment of acute pancreatitis: An international validation study. Arch. Intern. Med. 2011, 171, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Muddana, V.; Whitcomb, D.C.; Khalid, A.; Slivka, A.; Papachristou, G.I. Elevated serum creatinine as a marker of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2009, 104, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wilson, C.; Heath, D.I.; Imrie, C.W. Prediction of outcome in acute pancreatitis: A comparative study of APACHE II, clinical assessment and multiple factor scoring systems. Br. J. Surg. 1990, 77, 1260–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sandberg, A.A.; Borgstrom, A. Early prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis. Is this possible? JOP 2002, 3, 116–125. [Google Scholar]
  21. Neoptolemos, J.P.; Kemppainen, E.A.; Mayer, J.M.; Fitzpatrick, J.M.; Raraty, M.G.; Slavin, J.; Beger, H.G.; Hietaranta, A.J.; Puolakkainen, P.A. Early prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis by urinary trypsinogen activation peptide: A multicentre study. Lancet 2000, 355, 1955–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pieri, G.; Agarwal, B.; Burroughs, A.K. C-reactive protein and bacterial infection in cirrhosis. Ann. Gastroenterol. 2014, 27, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Komolafe, O.; Pereira, S.P.; Davidson, B.R.; Gurusamy, K.S. Serum C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate dehydrogenase for the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 21, CD012645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Keak, C.; Almeida, N. Predicting Severity in Acute Pancreatitis: A Never Ending Quest…. GE Port. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 26, 232–234. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mentula, P.; Kylänpää, M.L.; Kemppainen, E.; Jansson, S.E.; Sarna, S.; Puolakkainen, P.; Haapiainen, R.; Repo, H. Early prediction of organ failure by combined markers in patients with acute pancreatitis. Br. J. Surg. 2005, 92, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Van den Berg, F.F.; de Brujin, A.C.; van Santvoort, H.C.; Issa, Y.; Boermeester, M.A. Early laboratory biomarkers for severity in acute pancreatitis; A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2020, 20, 1302–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mayer, J.; Rau, B.; Gansauge, F.; Beger, H.G. Inflammatory mediators in human acute pancreatitis: Clinical and pathophysiological implications. Gut 2000, 47, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McKay, C.J.; Gallagher, G.; Brooks, B.; Imrie, C.W.; Baxter, J.N. Increased monocyte cytokine production in association with systemic complications in acute pancreatitis. Br. J. Surg. 1996, 83, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kylänpää-Bäck, M.L.; Takala, A.; Kemppainen, E.; Puolakkainen, P.; Haapiainen, K.; Repo, H. Procalcitonin strip test in the early detection of severe acute pancreatitis. Br. J. Surg. 2001, 88, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Modrau, I.S.; Floyd, A.K.; Thorlacius-Ussing, O. The clinical value of procalcitonin in early assessment of acute pancreatitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2005, 100, 1593–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hedström, J.; Korvuo, A.; Kenkimäki, P.; Tikanoja, S.; Haapiainen, R.; Kivilaakso, E.; Stenman, U.H. Urinary trypsinogen-2 test strip for acute pancreatitis. Lancet 1996, 347, 729–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lempinen, M.; Kylänpää-Bäck, M.L.; Stenman, U.H.; Puolakkainen, P.; Haapiainen, R.; Finne, P.; Korvuo, A.; Kemppainen, E. Predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis by rapid measurement of trypsinogen-2 in urine. Clin. Chem. 2001, 47, 2103–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Balthazar, E.J. CT diagnosis and staging of acute pancreatitis. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 1989, 27, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Balthazar, E.J. Staging of acute pancreatitis. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2002, 40, 1199–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Balthazar, E.J.; Robinson, D.L.; Megibow, A.J.; Ranson, J.H. Acute pancreatitis: Value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 1990, 174, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mortele, K.J.; Wiesner, W.; Intriere, L.; Shankar, S.; Zou, K.H.; Kalantari, B.N.; Perez, A.; vanSonnenberg, E.; Ros, P.R.; Banks, P.A.; et al. A modified CT severity index for evaluating acute pancreatitis: Improved correlation with patient outcome. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004, 183, 1261–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Heller, S.J.; Noordhoek, E.; Tenner, S.M.; Ramagopal, V.; Abramowitz, M.; Hughes, M.; Banks, P.A. Pleural effusion as a predictor of severity in acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 1997, 15, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yan, G.; Li, H.; Bhetuwal, A.; McClure, M.A.; Li, Y.; Yang, G.; Li, Y.; Zhao, L.; Fan, X. Pleural effusion volume in patients with acute pancreatitis: A retrospective study from three acute pancreatitis centers. Ann. Med. 2021, 53, 2003–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sternby, H.; Mahle, M.; Linder, N.; Erichson-Kirst, L.; Verdonk, R.C.; Dimova, A.; Ignatavicius, P.; Ilzarbe, L.; Koiva, P.; Penttila, A.; et al. Mean muscle attenuation correlates with severe acute pancreatitis unlike visceral adipose tissue and subcutaneous adipose tissue. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2019, 10, 1312–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jang, D.K.; Ahn, D.W.; Lee, K.L.; Kim, B.G.; Kim, J.W.; Kim, S.H.; Kang, H.W.; Lee, D.S.; Yoon, S.H.; Park, S.J.; et al. Impacts of body composition parameters and liver cirrhosis on the severity of alcoholic acute pancreatitis. PLoS ONE 2021, 22, e0260309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Golea, A.; Badea, R.; Socaciu, M.; Diaconu, B.; Iacob, D. Quantitative analysis of tissue perfusion using contrast-enhanced transabdominal ultrasound (CEUS) in the evaluation of the severity of acute pancreatitis. Med. Ultrason. 2010, 12, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Rickes, S.; Uhle, C.; Kahl, S.; Kolfenbach, S.; Monkemuller, K.; Effenberger, O.; Malfertheiner, P. Echo enhanced ultrasound: A new valid initial imaging approach for severe acute pancreatitis. Gut 2006, 55, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rana, S.S.; Bhasin, D.K.; Sharma, V.; Sharma, R.; Chaudhary, V.; Chhabra, P. Can early endoscopic ultrasound predict pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis? Ann. Gastroenterol. 2014, 27, 404–408. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Lopes, C.V.; Pereira-Lima, J.; Hartmann, A.A. The role of linear endosonography for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis when other methods failed. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2019, 43, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Alper, E.; Arabul, M.; Aslan, F.; Cekic, C.; Celik, M.; Ipek, S.; Unsal, B. Radial EUS Examination Can be Helpful in Predicting the Severity of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis. Medicine 2016, 95, e2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xiao, B.; Zhang, X.M. Magnetic resonance imaging for acute pancreatitis. World J. Radiol. 2010, 2, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xie, C.-L.; Zhang, M.; Chen, Y.; Hu, R.; Tang, M.-Y.; Chen, T.-W.; Xue, H.-D.; Jin, Z.-Y.; Zhang, X.-M. Spleen and splenic vascular involvement in acute pancreatitis: An MRI study. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2018, 8, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ranson, J.H.; Rifkind, K.M.; Roses, D.F.; Fink, S.D.; Eng, K.; Spencer, F.C. Prognostic signs and the role of operative management in acute pancreatitis. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1974, 139, 69–81. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ranson, J.H. The timing of biliary surgery in acute pancreatitis. Ann. Surg. 1979, 189, 654–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Buxbaum, J.; Quezada, M.; Chong, B.; Gupta, N.; Yu, C.Y.; Lane, C.; Da, B.; Leung, K.; Shulman, I.; Pandol, S.; et al. The Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System predicts clinical outcomes in acute pancreatitis: Findings from a prospective cohort study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 113, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kiat, T.T.J.; Gunasekaran, S.K.; Junnarkar, S.P.; Low, J.K.; Woon, W.; Shelat, V.G. Are traditional scoring systems for severity stratification of acute pancreatitis sufficient? Ann. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Surg. 2018, 22, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Banks, P.A.; Freeman, M.L.; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 2379–2400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Johnson, C.D.; Toh, S.K.; Campbell, M.J. Combination of APACHE-II score and obesity score (APACHE-O) for the prediction of severe acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2004, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Papachristou, G.I.; Papachristou, D.J.; Avula, H.; Slivka, A.; Whitcomb, D.C. Obesity increases the severity of acute pancreatitis: Performance of APACHE-O score and correlation with the inflammatory response. Pancreatology 2006, 6, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wu, B.U.; Johannes, R.S.; Sun, X.; Tabak, Y.; Conwell, D.L.; Banks, P.A. The early prediction of mortality in acute pancreatitis: A large population-based study. Gut 2008, 57, 1698–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Singh, V.K.; Wu, B.U.; Bollen, T.L.; Repas, K.; Maurer, R.; Johannes, R.S.; Mortele, K.J.; Conwell, D.; Banks, P.A. A prospective evaluation of the bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis score in assessing mortality and intermediate markers of severity in acute pancreatitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2009, 104, 966–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yadav, J.; Yadav, S.K.; Kumar, S.; Baxla, R.G.; Sinha, D.K.; Bodra, P.; Besra, R.C.; Baski, B.M.; Prakash, O.; Anand, A. 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. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2016, 4, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ogawa, M.; Hirota, M.; Hayakawa, T.; Matsuno, S.; Watanabe, S.; Atomi, Y.; Otuki, M.; Kashima, K.; Koizumi, M.; Harada, H.; et al. Development and use of a new staging system for severe acute pancreatitis based on a nationwide survey in Japan. Pancreas 2002, 25, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lankisch, P.G.; Weber-Dany, B.; Hebel, K.; Maisonneuve, P.; Lowenfels, A.B. The harmless acute pancreatitis score: A clinical algorithm for rapid initial stratification of nonsevere disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2009, 7, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Silva-Vaz, P.; Abrantes, A.M.; Castelo-Branco, M.; Gouveia, A.; Botelho, M.F.; Tralhao, J.G. Multifactorial scores and biomarkers of prognosis of acute pancreatitis: Applications to research and practice. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Taylor, S.L.; Morgan, D.L.; Denson, K.D.; Lane, M.M.; Pennington, L.R. A comparison of the Ranson, Glasgow, and APACHE II scoring systems to a multiple organ system score in predicting patient outcome in pancreatitis. Am. J. Surg. 2005, 189, 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Papachristou, G.I.; Muddana, V.; Yadav, D.; O’Connell, M.; Sanders, M.K.; Slivka, A.; Whitcomb, D.C. Comparison of BISAP, Ranson’s, APACHE-II, and CTSI scores in predicting organ failure, complications, and mortality in acute pancreatitis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 105, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Andersson, B.; Andersson, R.; Ohsson, M.; Nilsson, J. Prediction of severe acute pancreatitis at admission to hospital using artificial neural networks. Pancreatology 2011, 11, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Pearce, C.B.; Gunn, S.R.; Ahmed, A.; Johnson, C.D. Machine learing can improve prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis using admission values of APACHE II score and C-reactive protein. Pancreatology 2006, 6, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Mofidi, R.; Duff, M.D.; Madhavan, K.K.; Garden, O.J.; Parks, R.W. Identification of severe acute pancreatitis using an artificial neural network. Surgery 2007, 141, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Halonen, K.I.; Leppaniemi, A.K.; Lundin, J.E.; Puolakkainen, P.A.; Kemppainen, E.A.; Haapiainen, R.K. Predicting fatal outcome in the early phase of severe acute pancreatitis by using novel prognostic models. Pancreatology 2003, 3, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Revision of Atlanta classification for severity of acute pancreatitis.
Table 1. Revision of Atlanta classification for severity of acute pancreatitis.
SeverityDefinitions
MildAbsence of organ failure, absence of local complications
Moderately severeTransient organ failure (within 48 h) and/or local * or systemic $ complications
SeverePersistent single or multiple organ failure (>48 h)
* local complications: peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected), pseudocyst and walled off necrosis (sterile or infected), gastric outlet dysfunction, splenic/portal vein thrombosis, necrosis of colon; $ systemic complications: exacerbation of pre-existing co-morbidities, such as coronary artery disease or chronic lung disease, precipitated by acute pancreatitis.
Table
Table 2. Computed tomography findings of acute pancreatitis according to Balthazar grade.
Table 2. Computed tomography findings of acute pancreatitis according to Balthazar grade.
GradeComputed Tomography Finding
ANormal pancreas
BFocal or diffuse enlargement of pancreas
CIntrinsic pancreatic abnormalities with inflammatory changes in peripancreatic fat
DSingle peripancreatic fluid collection
ETwo or more fluid collections and/or air in retroperitoneal area (adjacent to pancreas)
Table
Table 3. Computed tomography (CT) severity index and modified CT severity index.
Table 3. Computed tomography (CT) severity index and modified CT severity index.
CT Severity IndexModified CT Severity Index
CT gradeNormal pancreas0Normal pancreas0
Focal or diffuse enlargement of pancreas1Pancreatic abnormalities with or without peripancreatic inflammation2
Intrinsic pancreatic abnormalities with inflammatory changes in peripancreatic fat2Pancreatic or peripancreatic fluid collection or fat necrosis4
Single peripancreatic fluid collection3-
Two or more fluid collections and/or air in retroperitoneal area (adjacent to pancreas).4
Pancreatic necrosisNone0None0
<30%2<30%2
30–50%4>30%4
>50%6-
Extrapancreatic complications
(one or more)		-Pleural effusion, ascites, vascular complication (venous thrombosis, arterial hemorrhage), GI tract involvement (inflammation, perforation, intraluminal fluid collection), parenchymal complications (infarction, hemorrhage, fluid collection of subcapsular area)2
Table
Table 4. Ranson score in acute pancreatitis (non-biliary and biliary).
Table 4. Ranson score in acute pancreatitis (non-biliary and biliary).
Ranson (Alcoholic or Others)Ranson (Biliary)
At admissionAt admission
Age > 55 yearsAge > 70 years
WBC * > 16,000/mm3WBC > 18,000/mm3
LDH $ > 350 U/LLDH > 400 U/L
AST # > 250 U/LAST > 250 U/L
Glucose > 200 mg/dLGlucose > 220 mg/dL
In initial 48 hIn initial 48 h
Hematocrit fall > 10%Hematocrit fall > 10%
BUN ¥ increase > 5 mg/dLBUN increase > 2 mg/dL
Calcium < 8 mg/dLCalcium < 8 mg/dL
PaO2 < 60 mmHgPaO2 < 60 mmHg
Base deficit > 4 mEq/LBase deficit > 4 mEq/L
Fluid sequestration > 6 LFluid sequestration > 4 L
Each factor 1 point (total 0–11 points)
* WBC, white blood cell; $ LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; # AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ¥ BUN, blood urea nitrogen.
Table
Table 5. Glasgow severity score for acute pancreatitis.
Table 5. Glasgow severity score for acute pancreatitis.
Age > 55 years
WBC * > 15,000/mm3
PaO2 < 60 mmHg
LDH $ > 600 U/L
AST # > 200 U/L
Albumin < 3.2 g/dL
Calcium < 8 mg/dL
Glucose > 180 mg/dL
Urea > 45 mg/dL
* WBC, white blood cell; $ LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; # AST, aspartate aminotransferase.
Table
Table 6. Bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis.
Table 6. Bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis.
BUN * > 25 mg/dL
Impaired mental status (Glasgow Coma Scale Score < 15)
SIRS $ (defined as two or more of the followings)
(1)
Body temperature < 26 °C or >38 °C
(2)
Respiratory rate > 20/min or PaCO2 < 32 mmHg
(3)
Pulse > 90/min
(4)
WBC # < 4000/mm3 or >12,000/mm3 or 10% immature bands
Age > 60 years
Pleural effusion detected on imaging
Each factor 1 point (total 0–5 points)
* BUN, blood urea nitrogen; $ SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; # WBC, white blood cell.
Table
Table 7. Japanese severity score for acute pancreatitis.
Table 7. Japanese severity score for acute pancreatitis.
FactorsClinical FindingsLaboratory Findings
Prognostic factor I
(2 points per each finding)		Shock
Impaired level of consciousness
Respiratory failure
Severe sepsis
Disseminated intravascular coagulation		Base excess < −3 mEq/L
Hematocrit < 30% after hydration
BUN * > 40 mg/dL
Creatinine > 2 mg/dL
Prognostic factor II
(1 points per each finding)		 Calcium < 7.5 mg/dL
Glucose > 200 mg/dL
Protein < 6.0 g/dL
LDH $ > 700 IU/L
PaO2 < 60 mmHg (on room air)
Prothrombin time > 15 s
Platelet count < 10,000/mm3
Balthazar score D or E
Prognostic factor IIISIRS # score > 3 (2 points)
Age > 70 years (1 point)
-
Stage 0, mild acute pancreatitis
-
Stage 1, moderate acute pancreatitis
-
Stage 2, severe acute pancreatitis I (severity score 2–8 points)
-
Stage 3, severe acute pancreatitis II (severity score 9–14 points)
-
Stage 4, extremely severe acute pancreatitis (severity score 15–27 points)
* BUN, blood urea nitrogen; $ LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; # SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
Table
Table 8. Comparison of scoring systems in prediction for severity of acute pancreatitis.
Table 8. Comparison of scoring systems in prediction for severity of acute pancreatitis.
Scoring SystemCut-Off ValueAUC £AdvantageDisadvantage
Ranson score30.810Can predict not only severity but also organ failure and mortalityRequires 48 h for a complete evaluation
Glasgow score20.780Can predict mortality regardless of etiologyRequires 48 h for a complete evaluation
APACHE * II70.895Effective scoring system to predict severity Parameters are complicated and over-estimates in old age
APACHE-O $70.893Reflects APACHE II with obesityNot superior to APACHE II
BISAP #30.875Can predict not only severity but also organ failure and mortalityGood predictive system for mainly Western environment
JSS ¥20.798Similar accuracy to Ranson scoreParameters are complicated and focused on in-hospital mortality
* APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination; $ APACHE-O, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination with obesity consideration; # BISAP, bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis; ¥ JSS, Japanese severity scale; £ AUC, area under the curve.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, D.W.; Cho, C.M. Predicting Severity of Acute Pancreatitis. Medicina 2022, 58, 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060787

AMA Style

Lee DW, Cho CM. Predicting Severity of Acute Pancreatitis. Medicina. 2022; 58(6):787. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060787

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Dong Wook, and Chang Min Cho. 2022. "Predicting Severity of Acute Pancreatitis" Medicina 58, no. 6: 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58060787

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop