ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Outcome assessment in acute pancreatitis
patients
Wei-Sin Lee
a, Jee-Fu Huang
b,c,*, Wan-Long Chuang
a,ca
Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
b
Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
c
Faculty of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Received 4 May 2012; accepted 13 July 2012 Available online 12 January 2013
KEYWORDS Acute pancreatitis; Disease outcome; Mortality and morbidity; Scoring systems; Systemic inflammatory response syndrome
Abstract Early diagnosis and severity evaluation in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) are very important due to its potential morbidity and mortality. Several clinical, laboratory, and radiologic factors, and many scoring systems have been proposed for outcome prediction. Although the Ranson and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scoring systems have been widely used for decades, the cumbersome components partly limit their predict-ability. Recently, the Bedside Index for Severity in AP scoring system and series blood urea nitrogen changes, which are simple and convenient to evaluate within 24 hours after admis-sion, have been validated for accuracy by several large-cohort studies. The presence of organ failure and systemic inflammatory response syndrome are also helpful to evaluate the severity of AP. Herein we review recent advances of the predictive methods for AP to provide an up-to-date perspective on outcome assessment of AP.
Copyrightª 2012, Kaohsiung Medical University. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common acute inflammatory process of the pancreas that usually manifests with
severe acute upper abdominal pain and elevated pancreatic enzymes. Overall, 85% of patients have interstitial pancreatitis, which is usually mild, self-limiting and has a favorable prognosis. However, a severe form of AP, necrotizing pancreatitis, develops in 15% (range 4e47%) of AP patients. One-third of these patients may have infected necrosis and subsequent complications such as sepsis, multiorgan failure, and death[1].
* Corresponding author. Department of Internal Medicine, Kaoh-siung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital, KaohKaoh-siung Medical University, 482 San-Ming Road, Kaohsiung City 812, Taiwan.
E-mail address:[email protected](J.-F. Huang).
1607-551X/$36 Copyrightª 2012, Kaohsiung Medical University. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2012.10.007
Available online atwww.sciencedirect.com
The patient response to pancreatic injury in the case of AP is often variable and difficult to predict. The overall mortality in AP is approximately 5%, which can be classified into early and late death. The former is defined as2 weeks after admission and is attributed to multiorgan failure, whereas the latter is defined as >2 weeks and is usually associated with septic complication due to infected necrosis
[1e4]. The prevalence rates of organ failure (OF) in inter-stitial pancreatitis, infected pancreatitis, and sterile pancreatitis are 10%, 34e89%, and 45e73%, respectively. The mortality rates in the absence of OF, in the presence of one OF, and multiorgan failure are 0%, 3%, and 47%, respectively
[5e8]. Different extents of pancreatic necrosis and its subsequent complications chiefly contribute to the occur-rence of OF and/or mortality during the admission period
[7,8]. Therefore, the initial assessment of severity in AP to evaluate OF and the complications of pancreatic necrosis as soon as possible is critical for the appropriate management and risk assessment in a clinical setting.
Pathophysiological mechanisms
Recent studies showed that AP is generally considered to have three phases. The first phase is characterized by trypsin activation within pancreatic acinar cells. Several pathways provoke trypsin activation, and the most important mecha-nisms include: (1) cleavage of trypsinogen to trypsin by the lysosomal hydrolase cathepsin B; (2) trypsin-induced tryp-sinogen activation (tryptryp-sinogen autoactivation); (3) a rise in intracellular Ca2þ and a disruption of acinar cell Ca2þ signaling; and (4) decreased activity of the pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor[1,9]. Generally, trypsin activa-tion is the major hidden player in the scenario.
The second phase involves the activation and chemo-attraction of leukocytes and macrophages in the pancreas, resulting in an enhanced intrapancreatic inflammatory reaction. Neutrophil sequestration can also activate tryp-sinogen. Neutrophil depletion by administration of anti-neutrophil serum reduced the extent of necrosis and inflammatory infiltrate in experimental studies[1,9,10].
In the third phase, there is extrapancreatic inflamma-tion. Local release of cytokines triggers chemotaxis of activated granulocytes and macrophages. These immune cells also release cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-a, interleukin-1, and interleukin-6, activating Kupffer cells in the liver. The Kupffer cells increase cytokine levels in the blood, which in turn mediates distant organ damage such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), acute respiratory distress syndrome or multiorgan failure[10].
Diagnosis
Serologic tests
A diagnosis of AP requires at least two of the following three features: (1) abdominal pain characteristic of AP; (2) serum amylase and/or lipase3 times the upper limit of normal; and (3) characteristic findings of AP on imaging studies, particularly computed tomography (CT) scan[1]. In AP, the serum amylase and lipase are usually elevated
within 24 hours of onset and remains so for 3e7 days. Serum lipase level is more specific and sensitive than serum amylase level. Both values may be normal in AP, notably confounded by delayed blood sampling, underlying chronic pancreatitis, or hypertriglyceridemia. Values3 times the upper limit of normal virtually confirm the diagnosis of AP. Some disorders may also mildly influence serum amylase level, such as renal insufficiency or salivary gland lesion. However, the extent of pancreatic enzymes elevation does not reflect the severity of AP.
Imaging modalities
To diagnose AP, there are several noninvasive imaging tests, including ultrasound (US), CT, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The choice of a specific imaging modality should take the following reasons into consideration: (1) the timing of onset of symptoms; (2) the severity and complication of pancreatitis; (3) the associated biliary tract abnormalities such as biliary obstruction, gallstone or choledocholithiasis; and (4) the potential contraindication of imaging tests.
The identification of biliary gallstones by US is nearly 90%, whereas it may reach 80% in the diagnosis of chol-edocholithiasis [11]. US is also the most convenient and easy-to-access tool in a clinical setting. However, accurate evaluation of the whole pancreatic gland in AP remains difficult and presents some limitations. The evaluation of parenchymal perfusion and the border between paren-chymal necrosis and edema are quite limited on US[11]. A dynamic ileus may also occur in AP patients, which may significantly undermine the performance of US evaluation. Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT is the best imaging modality regarding the diagnosis of AP due to the following attributes: (1) it can be performed rapidly and urgently; (2) it is informative in the evaluation of the severity and the complication; (3) helps to approach in patients with sus-pected chronic pancreatitis; (4) other disorders that are clinically similar to AP can be accurately excluded; and (5) interference from bowel gas can be largely avoided. According to the CT severity index (CTSI, or Balth-azareRanson criteria for severity) [12], CT scanning provides mortality and morbidity information (Table 1). Compared to acute physiology and chronic health evalua-tion II (APACHE II) score, CTSI has the advantages of: (1) better sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values for severe pancreatitis; (2) prediction of the morbidity and mortality; and (3) being a good predictor of local complications[13,14]. Generally, CTSI is conducted 72 hours after admission, whereas the APACHE II scale is calculated at 24 hours or 48 hours. For predicting systemic OF and the need of intensive care, APACHE II is more confident than CTSI. Contrast-enhanced CT is contra-indicated if there is significant renal impairment or history of significant allergy to contrast medium. Therefore, non-contrast CT scanning (if emergent) or MRI may be better choices to evaluate the severity of AP.
In the evaluation of AP, MRI has some potential advan-tages: (1) lack of nephrotoxicity of gadolinium as compared to an iodinated contrast; (2) application in pregnant women and children for dose-related issues or in patients with history of contrast allergy; (3) acquisition of
MRCP sequences to evaluate choledocholithiasis-induced pancreatitis; and (4) greater ability to distinguish necrosis from fluid [1,11]. A high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (98%) of MRCP in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was recognized especially for stones>3 mm in diameter[11]. Patients who have early diagnosis of gallstone-induced pancreatitis can receive urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which leads to a lower rate of recurrence and complications[15]. MRI can also accurately determine disease severity and predict clinical outcome during the course of AP. Several studies showed that MR severity index, with the same grading evaluation as CTSI, possesses a performance comparable with CT and Ranson score [16e18]. MRI is also correlated well with APACHE II score in terms of mortality, morbidity, duration of hospital-ization and the need for intensive care[19]. Therefore, MRI is a better alternative for AP if contrast CT is contraindicated.
Methods and scoring systems for severity
assessment in AP
The initial assessment of severity in AP is critical for the appropriate triage and management of patients due to its high mortality and morbidity in severe cases. Criteria of severe AP, including early prognostic signs, OF, and local complication, were initially established in 1992 (Table 2)[1]. There are several simple predictors to evaluate the prognosis on admission or in the emergency department. Old age, defined as age over 75 years, is a definite predictor for poorer prognosis[1]. Frey et al. demonstrated that as
compared with patients aged 35 years or under, patients over 75 years carried a more than 15-fold and 22-fold of death within 2 weeks and 91 days, respectively[20]. Older age is also associated with mortality in the first 48 hours of AP occurrence but it is not related to the development of persistent or deteriorating multiorgan dysfunction syndrome[21].
Several studies have found that obesity (body mass index> 30) is a risk factor for disease progression in AP[1]. In a meta-analysis study with 739 patients, obese patients developed significantly more severe AP [odds ratio (OR) 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8e4.6], systemic
Table 1 The grading of acute pancreatitis and computed tomography (CT) severity index. CT grading (unenhanced CT score)
Grade Findings Scores
A Normal pancreas 0
B Focal or diffuse enlargement of the pancreas 1 C Peripancreatic inflammation with intrinsic pancreatic
abnormalities
2 D Intrapancreatic or extrapancreatic fluid collections 3 E Two or more large fluid collection or gas in the pancreas
or retroperitoneum
4
Necrosis score based on contrast-enhanced CT The percentage of necrosis
0 0
<30% 2
30e50% 4
>50% 6
CT grading Mortality (%) Morbidity (%) Grade AþBþC (No fluid collections) 0 4
Grade DþE (Fluid collections) 14 54 Necrosis
No necrosis 0 6
Necrosis 23 82
CTSI (CT gradingþ necrosis)
0e2 0 4
3e6 6 35
7e10 17 92
Table 2 Severe acute pancreatitis as defined by the Atlanta Symposium.
Item Comment Early prognostic
signs
1. Ranson criteria3 points, or 2. APACHE II8 points
or
Organ failure 1. Shock: systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg
2. PaO260 mmHg
3. Creatinine>20 mg/L after rehydration 4. Gastrointestinal bleeding >500 mL/24 h and/or Local complication 1. Pancreatic necrosis 2. Abscess 3. Pseudocyst
complications (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4e3.8), local complications (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.4e6.6), and showed a higher mortality (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0e4.8) than their counterparts [22]. Patients with android fat distribution (central or visceral obesity) also had a relative risk of 4.36 or more in devel-oping severe AP [23]. The combination of APACHE-II and obesity (APACHE-O) measured within the first 24 hours of admission improved the prediction of severity (BMI score, <26: score Z 0, 26e30: score Z 1 and >30: score Z 2). At a cut-off of>8, APACHE-O had a sensitivity of 82%, a spec-ificity of 86%, a positive predictive value of 74%, a negative predictive value of 91% and an overall accuracy of 85%[24]. SIRS is defined by two or more of the following criteria: (1) pulse>90 beats/min; (2) respiratory rate >20/min or PCO2 <32 mmHg; (3) rectal temperature <36C or>38C; and (4) white blood count <4 109/L or >12 109/L or> 10% bands. The presence of SIRS on admission, at 24 hours and 48 hours as well as persistent SIRS (defined as SIRS present for the entire 48 hours) has a significantly higher mortality rate as compared with the absence of SIRS in patients with severe AP [25]. Persistent SIRS leads to a strong risk of persistent or deteriorating multiorgan dysfunction syndrome development [21]. In addition, patients with persistent SIRS have higher rate of persistent OF, pancreatic necrosis, and greater need of intensive care, compared to those with transient or no SIRS[26].
OF, an advanced and extreme consequence of inflam-matory processes, is also a good predictor for mortality and local complication in AP, especially during the 1st
week (i.e. early OF). There is a strong association between persistent OF (>48 hours) and local complication[4]. Transient OF (< 48 hours) was also associated with a mortality rate of 1.4 %, in contrast to 35% of persistent OF. Meanwhile, the pres-ence of early OF has a lower survival rate than the abspres-ence of OF, and persistent as well as deteriorating OF have a higher mortality rate than transient, resolved OF [25]. The occurrence of OF combined with infected pancreatic necrosis suggests a grave outcome[27].
Ranson criteria
Ranson criteria have been used since 1974 to evaluate the severity and mortality of AP (Table 3). Severe AP is defined when the Ranson score is 3 points. Mortality was 0e3%
when the score was <3, 11e15% when the score was 3, and 40% when the score was 6 [1]. Five factors are assessed at admission and the other six factors are assessed during the next 48 hours. However, Ranson criteria are cumbersome, laborious and not clinically practical. Complete evaluation after 48 hours may miss the golden time for therapy. A meta-analysis of 110 studies also found that the Ranson score has very poor positive and negative predictive value for severe AP [28]. Therefore, there has been a continuous need for an easy-to-access and useful method for decades.
APACHE scores
The APACHE II score was originally developed for critically ill patients in intensive care units (Table 4). A higher APACHE-II score at admission and during the first 72 hours is correlated with a higher mortality (<4% with an APACHE-II < 8 and 11e18% with an APACHE-II > 8)[1]. However, APACHE II score is also complex and more cumbersome than Ranson criteria. Furthermore, it does not differentiate well between interstitial and necrotizing pancreatitis and between sterile and infected necrosis [1]. Therefore, the clinical role of APACHE II score for AP severity assessment is declining compared to other predictors such as MR severity index and SIRS[19,26].
Bedside index for severity in AP
The Bedside Index for Severity in AP (BISAP) score is a new scoring system first described in 2008. Development of the BISAP score was based upon 17,922 cases of AP from 212 hospitals in 2000e2001 and validated in 18,256 cases from 177 hospitals in 2004e2005 [29]. In this study, several candidate risk factors were proposed: (1) individual Ranson criteria; (2) pleural effusion (on chest radiology or CT); (3) SIRS; (4) OF; (5) altered mental status; and (6) hemoglobin and hemoconcentration. The worst vital signs and positive findings of physical examination were also utilized. All risk factors were analyzed by classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. However, the serum calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, PaO2 and aspartate aminotransferase
Table 3 Ranson criteria for severity prediction of acute pancreatitis.
0 hour Comment
Age>55 y 1. Each item means one point. 2. Severe pancreatitis:
Ranson criteria3 points 3. Mortality:
0e2 Points: 0e3% 3e5 Points: 11e15% 6e11 Points: 40% White blood cell count>16 109/L
Blood glucose>2.0 mg/L (11.1 mM) Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)>350 U/L Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)>250 U/L 48 hours
Hematocrit decrease by10%
Blood urea nitrogen increase by50 mg/L (1.8 mM) despite fluids Serum calcium<80 mg/L (2 mM)
pO2<60 mmHg
Base deficit>4 MEq/L Fluid sequestration>6 L
measurements were excluded due to their failure to meet the pre-specified 85% collection rate threshold.
The risk points of BISAP score includes blood urea nitrogen (BUN)> 250 mg/L, impaired mental status, SIRS (2 criteria), age > 60 years, and pleural effusion within 24 hours after admission. In the derivation cohort after CART analysis, BUN was identified as the most efficient first splitting variable. Age and SIRS further discriminated between high- and low-risk cases. Both the mortality rate and the area under curve (AUC) were comparable between the derivation and the validation cohorts and APACHE-II score were similar (AUC: 0.83, 0.82 and 0.83 of the deri-vation cohort, validation cohort, and APACHE-II score, respectively). The BISAP score also had performance char-acteristics for mortality prediction, which were comparable with the APACHE II score. However, in this study, the BISAP score can only be a predictor for in-hospital mortality of AP. In another prospective study with 397 cases [30], the trend for increasing mortality with increasing BISAP score was statistically significant (p< 0.0001, and AUC was 0.82). Of 397 cases, 230 were admitted with their first episode of AP, and mortality was also significant (p < 0.0001) with increasing BISAP score in this subgroup. Patients with a BISAP score 3 were 7.4, 12.7, and 3.8 times more likely to develop OF (after 24 hours), persistent OF (>48 hours), and pancreatic necrosis, respectively.
The BISAP score was compared to Ranson scores, APACHE II scores, and CTSI scores in another prospective
study[31]. The AUCs for BISAP, Ranson, APACHE-II, and CTSI in predicting severe AP are 0.81, 0.94, 0.78, and 0.84, respectively. However, the BISAP score has lower sensi-tivity, but similar or higher specificity than the other three traditional scoring methods.
In summary, the BISAP score is more reliable than the traditional scoring systems due to the following advan-tages: (1) it is easily memorable; (2) it can be used within 24 hours for severe AP exclusion; and (3) two variables (i.e. BUN and SIRS) can be evaluated continuously for the development of complications, such as mortality and persistent OF, at 24 hours and 48 hours. Further studies should focus on how to increase post-test probability of severe disease (or pancreatic necrosis or death), making the BISAP score a powerful predictor in AP.
Serial BUN levels and other laboratory tests
In all risk factors, BUN was identified as the most efficient splitting variable by CART analysis [29]. The relationship between series BUN levels and AP complications has been consistently addressed. In a large hospital-based cohort
[32], serial BUN measurements were the most reliable single routine laboratory test to predict the mortality in AP. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality was 2.2 for every increase in the BUN of 50 mg/L during the first 24 hours, whereas it was 1.0 for every increase in the hemoglobin
Table 4 Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score.
þ4 þ3 þ2 þ1 0 þ1 þ2 þ3 þ4
Rectal temperature (C)
41 39e40.9 38e38.9 36e38.4 34e35.9 32e33.9 30e31.9 29.9 MAP (mmHg) 160 130e159 110e129 70e109 50e69 49 Heart rate (/min) 180 140e179 110e139 70e109 55e69 40e54 40 Respiratory rate
(/min)
50 35e49 25e34 12e24 10e11 6e9 5
If FiO250%, check A-a gradient; if FiO2<50%, PaO2
A-a gradient 500 350e499 200e349 <200
PaO2(mmHg) >70 61e70 55e60 <55
Arterial pH 7.7 7.6e7.69 7.5e7.59 7.3e7.49 7.25e7.3 7.15e7.2 <7.15 Na (mM) 180 160e179 155e159 150e154 130e149 120e129 111e19 110 K (mM) 7 6e6.9 5e5.9 3.5e4.9 3e3.4 2.5e2.9 <2.5 Creatinine(mg/L) 35 20e34 15e19 6.0e14 <6.0
Hematocrit (%) 60 50e59.9 46e49.9 30e45.9 20e29.9 <20 WBC count(109/L) 40
20e39.9 15e19.9 3e14.9 1e2.9 <1 Glasgow coma score (GCS): 0e12 points Z 15eGCS
Age (y) Points
<44 0 Chronic health (history of chronic conditions)a Points
45e54 2 None 0
55e64 3 If patient is admitted after elective surgery 2 65e74 5 If patient is admitted after emergency surgery or for
reason other than after elective surgery
5 >75 6
A-a gradient Z alveolar-arterial oxygen difference; K Z serum potassium; MAP Z mean blood pressure; Na Z serum sodium; WBCZ white blood cell.
aChronic health conditions: liver, cirrhosis with portal hypertension or encephalopathy; cardiovascular, class IV angina (at rest or with
minimal self-care activities); pulmonary, chronic hypoxemia or hypercapnia, polycythemia, ventilator dependent; kidney, chronic peritoneal or hemodialysis; immune, immunocompromised host.
(Hb) of 10 g/dL during the first 24 hours. There was a significant correlation between the extent of BUN change and the risk of mortality. Increasing AUC of BUN was also significantly observed between admission and 24 hours after admission, but not between 24 hours and 48 hours after admission. A BUN level of200 mg/L at admission was associated with an increased risk of death compared with a BUN level of<200 mg/L. Any increase in BUN at 24 hours was also associated with an increased risk of death. More-over, among patients with an elevated BUN level at admission (>200 mg/L), a decrease of at least 50 mg/L at 24 hours after admission was associated with reduced risk of in-hospital death[33].
A higher hematocrit level (hemoconcentration) subse-quent to fluid loss in the third space is considered as
a single reliable severity predictor in AP. AP patients with hematocrit level <44e47% at admission and failure to recover 24 hours later have a high possibility to develop necrotizing pancreatitis [34,35]. Hemoconcentration is also a predictor of OF, and patients with hematocrit criteria should be admitted urgently to an intensive care unit for vigorous fluid resuscitation[36]. The absence of hemoconcentration usually excludes a suspicion of pancreatic necrosis, and a contrast-enhanced CT may not be necessary. However, inconsistent results have been postulated in spite of consistent findings of a high nega-tive predicnega-tive value of hemoconcentration for necrosis and OF. The absence of hemoconcentration at admission and during the first 24 hours is generally suggestive of a benign clinical course. However, hematocrit is not
a single reliable predictor for OF, mortality, and severity in AP.
Hypocalcemia, one item of Ranson criteria calculated at 48 hours of AP development, is associated with severity and necrosis of AP. The precise pathogenesis is incompletely
understood. It may be attributed to binding of calcium during the process of fat necrosis and altered levels of circulating parathyroid hormone in AP [37,38]. Serum calcium level as well as plasma interleukin-10 and serum glucose were identified as independent predictors of OF in
Table 5 Summary of clinical, laboratory, radiologic risk factors and scoring systems for acute pancreatitis. Item Mortality Severity Pancreatic
necrosis
Persistent organ failure
Comments, Pros and Cons Reference
Characteristics of patients
Old age S The older age, the higher mortality 20, 21 Obesity S S Definition of obesity: body mass index> 30 kg/m2
Central or visceral obesity is more significant
22e25 Single laboratory test
Series BUN S The mortality is higher if the initial BUN level is> 200 mg/L and the following BUN level increases at 24 h
Pros: Easy evaluation
Cons: only significant in mortality
the AUC of 24 h and 48 h are not different
34, 35
Hematocrit S Hematocrit 44% 36e40 Pros: easy to evaluate
Cons: cannot evaluate mortality
Calcium S Pros: good predictor in organ failure 42 Cons: cannot evaluate mortality
Imaging scores
CTSI S S S The only one scoring system is proven to be superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE II
Pros: easy to perform accurately diagnose pancreatic necrosis
Cons: contraindicated in patients with allergy to contrast, impaired renal function, or pregnancy
12e14, 32,44
MRSI S S S Pros: alternative if contrast CT is contraindicated better diagnosis for biliary pancreatitis good predictor in length of hospitalization & need for ICU
11, 15e19
Cons: cannot be performed rapidly and urgently Other scoring system
SIRS S S S S Can be evaluated once per day according to clinical condition Patients with persistent SIRS, SIRS within 1 d, and 3 or 4 SIRS criteria have higher complication and mortality
4, 21, 27
Organ failure S S S Can be evaluated once per day according to clinical condition
4, 28 Patients with persistent or early organ failure have higher complication and mortality
BISAP S S S S Pros: early predictor within 24 h easily accessible BUN and SIRS can be evaluated continuously
30e33 APACHE-II S S Pros: good predictor for intensive care
Cons: cumbersome and laborious
1, 19 27 Ranson score S S Pros: has been used and validated for 40 y
Cons: cumbersome, laborious and not clinically practical may miss the golden time of therapy after 48 h
1, 29
APZ acute pancreatitis; APACHE-II Z Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination II; APACHE-O Z APACHE-II and obesity; BISAPZ Bedside Index for Severity of AP; BUN Z blood urea nitrogen; CRP Z C-reactive protein; CTSI Z computed tomography severity index; ICU Z intensive care unit; MRSI Z magnetic resonance severity index; OF Z organ failure; S Z significantly predictable; SIRSZ systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
AP [39]. The combination of an elevated interleukin-10 concentration (>50 pg/mL) and a decreasing calcium concentration (<65 mM or <68 g/L) was a significantly better predictor than any single marker or APACHE II score, with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity 93%. Hypocalcemia has been widely adapted as an important predictor within 72 hours for disease severity[38,40].
Other serum markers have been studied for predicting the severity of AP including the following: serum c-reactive protein, urinary trypsinogen activation peptide, procalci-tonin, polymorphonuclear elastase, pancreatic-associated protein, procarboxypeptidase-B, carboxypeptidase B acti-vation peptide, serum trypsinogen-2, phospholipase A-2, serum amyloid protein-A, substance P, antithrombin III, platelet activating factor, interleukins-1, 6, 8, and 10, tumor necrosis factor-a, or soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor, and various genetic polymorphisms. However, most serum markers were not widely available in the clin-ical setting because of their limitations of predictability and accessibility.
Future perspectives and conclusion
Early diagnosis and evaluation for the severity and mortality of AP are very important (Fig. 1). Severe AP can be predicted by using clinical, laboratory, imaging, and/or many scoring systems (Table 5). In various scoring systems and laboratory tests, the Ranson and APACHE-II scoring systems have been used widely for decades. However, these are cumbersome in intent and may delay treatment implementation due to limited predictability. BISAP scoring system and series BUN changes have been validated for accuracy by several large-cohort studies [29,32]. Mean-while, both tests are simple and convenient to evaluate within 24 hours after admission. However, a complemen-tary application of the assessment methods is essential because a single method does not reliably predict the development of morbidity and mortality. For example, imaging scoring has good evaluation for pancreatic necrosis but it is a poor predictor for OF. Only SIRS and OF can evaluate the severity after 48 hours. Therefore, to find a simple and easy-to-access panel and/or biomarkers over the whole clinical course is the further research goal. Further validation among AP patients of different etiolo-gies, race and regions will be mandatory in order to eluci-date the diverse outcomes of the disease. For example, previous study in Taiwan demonstrated that CTSI is superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE II score[40]. Patients with CTSI 5 have higher mortality, longer duration of hospi-talization (20 days), and complications. In addition, host susceptibility regarding genetic and proteomic studies is helpful for clarification of the whole pathogenic context of AP. It will also be informative to assess various outcome measurement tools based on personalized medicine in the future.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful for the secretarial help from the Taiwan Liver Research Foundation (TLRF).
References
[1] Banks PA, Freeman MLPractice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:2379e400. [2] Mutinga M, Rosenbluth A, Tenner SM, Odze RR, Sica GT,
Banks PA. Does mortality occur early or late in acute pancreatitis? Int J Pancreatol 2000;28:91e5.
[3] Blum T, Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB, Lankisch PG. Fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis: its occurrence and early prediction. Pancreatology 2001;1:237e41.
[4] Johnson CD, Abu-Hilal M. Persistent organ failure during the first week as a marker of fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis. Gut 2004;53:1340e4.
[5] Isenmann R, Rau B, Beger HG. Bacterial infection and extent of necrosis are determinants of organ failure in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1999;86:1020e4. [6] de Beaux AC, Palmer KR, Carter DC. Factors influencing
morbidity and mortality in acute pancreatitis; an analysis of 279 cases. Gut 1995;37:121e6.
[7] Perez A, Whang EE, Brooks DC, Moore Jr FD, Hughes MD, Sica GT, et al. Is severity of necrotizing pancreatitis increased in extended necrosis and infected necrosis? Pancreas 2002;25: 229e33.
[8] Lankisch PG, Pflichthofer D, Lehnick D. No strict correlation between necrosis and organ failure in acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 2000;20:319e22.
[9] Bhatia M, Wong FL, Cao Y, Lau HY, Huang J, Puneet P, et al. Pathophysiology of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2005;5: 132e44.
[10] Weber CK, Adler G. From acinar cell damage to systemic inflammatory response: current concepts in pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2001;1:356e62.
[11] Scaglione M, Casciani E, Pinto A, Andreoli C, De Vargas M, Gualdi GF. Imaging assessment of acute pancreatitis: a review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2008;29:322e40. [12] Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JH. Acute
pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 1990;174:331e6.
[13] De Sanctis JT, Lee MJ, Gazelle GS, Boland GW, Halpern EF, Saini S, et al. Prognostic indicators in acute pancreatitis: CT vs. APACHE II. Clin Radiol 1997;52:842e8.
[14] Wahab S, Khan RA, Ahmad I, Wahab A. Imaging and clinical prognostic indicators of acute pancreatitis: a comparative insight. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 2010;40:283e7. [15] Cherian JV, Selvaraj JV, Natrayan R, Venkataraman J. ERCP in
acute pancreatitis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2007;6: 233e40.
[16] Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, De Maertelaere V, Bali M, Winant C, Coppens E, et al. Computed tomography and magnetic reso-nance imaging in the assessment of acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2004;126:715e23.
[17] Viremouneix L, Monneuse O, Gautier G, Gruner L, Giorgi R, Allaouchiche B, et al. Prospective evaluation of nonenhanced MR imaging in acute pancreatitis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26:331e8.
[18] Arvanitakis M, Koustiani G, Gantzarou A, Grollios G, Tsitouridis I, Haritandi-Kouridou A, et al. Staging of severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imagingda comparative study. Dig Liver Dis 2007;39:473e82.
[19] Tang W, Zhang XM, Xiao B, Zeng NL, Pan HS, Feng ZS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus Acute Physiology and Chronic Healthy Evaluation II score in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:637e42.
[20] Frey CF, Zhou H, Harvey DJ, White RH. The incidence and case-fatality rates of acute biliary, alcoholic, and idiopathic
pancreatitis in California, 1994-2001. Pancreas 2006;33: 336e44.
[21] Mofidi R, Duff MD, Wigmore SJ, Madhavan KK, Garden OJ, Parks RW. Association between early systemic inflammatory response, severity of multiorgan dysfunction and death in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2006;93:738e44.
[22] Martı´nez J, Johnson CD, Sa´nchez-Paya´ J, de Madaria E, Robles-Dı´az G, Pe´rez-Mateo M. Obesity is a definitive risk factor of severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis. Pancreatology 2006;6:206e9. [23] Abu Hilal M, Armstrong T. The impact of obesity on the course
and outcome of acute pancreatitis. Obes Surg 2008;18:326e8. [24] Johnson CD, Toh SK, Campbell MJ. Combination of APACHE-II score and an obesity score (APACHE-O) for the prediction of severe acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2004;4:1e6. [25] Buter A, Imrie CW, Carter CR, Evans S, McKay CJ. Dynamic
nature of early organ dysfunction determines outcome in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2002;89:298e302.
[26] Singh VK, Wu BU, Bollen TL, Repas K, Maurer R, Mortele KJ, et al. Early systemic inflammatory response syndrome is associated with severe acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:1247e51.
[27] Petrov MS, Shanbhag S, Chakraborty M, Phillips AR, Windsor JA. Organ failure and infection of pancreatic necrosis as determinants of mortality in patients with acute pancrea-titis. Gastroenterology 2010;139:813e20.
[28] De Bernardinis M, Violi V, Roncoroni L, Boselli AS, Giunta A, Peracchia A. Discriminant power and information content of Ranson’s prognostic signs in acute pancreatitis: a meta-analytic study. Crit Care Med 1999;27:2272e83.
[29] Wu BU, Johannes RS, Sun X, Tabak Y, Conwell DL, Banks PA. The early prediction of mortality in acute pancreatitis: a large population-based study. Gut 2008;57:1698e703.
[30] Singh VK, Wu BU, Bollen TL, Repas K, Maurer R, Johannes RS, et al. 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;104:966e71.
[31] Papachristou GI, Muddana V, Yadav D, O’Connell M, Sanders MK, Slivka A, et al. Comparison of BISAP, Ranson’s, APACHE-II, and CTSI scores in predicting organ failure, complications, and mortality in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:435e41.
[32] Wu BU, Johannes RS, Sun X, Conwell DL, Banks PA. Early changes in blood urea nitrogen predict mortality in acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2009;137:129e35.
[33] Wu BU, Bakker OJ, Papachristou GI, Besselink MG, Repas K, van Santvoort HC, et al. Blood urea nitrogen in the early assessment of acute pancreatitis: an international validation study. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:669e76.
[34] Baillargeon JD, Orav J, Ramagopal V, Tenner SM, Banks PA. Hemoconcentration as an early risk factor for necrotizing pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:2130e4.
[35] Brown A, Orav J, Banks PA. Hemoconcentration is an early marker for organ failure and necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreas 2000;20:367e72.
[36] Lankisch PG, Mahlke R, Blum T, Bruns A, Bruns D, Maisonneuve P, et al. Hemoconcentration: an early marker of severe and/or necrotizing pancreatitis? A critical appraisal. Am J Gastroentero 2001;96:2081e5.
[37] Gonza´lvez-Gasch A, de Casasola GG, Martı´n RB, Herreros B, Guijarro C. A simple prognostic score for risk assessment in patients with acute pancreatitis. Eur J Intern Med 2009;20: e43e8.
[38] Mentula P, Kyla¨npa¨a¨ ML, Kemppainen E, Jansson SE, Sarna S, Puolakkainen P, et al. Early prediction of organ failure by combined markers in patients with acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2005;92:68e75.
[39] Hong W, Dong L, Huang Q, Wu W, Wu J, Wang Y. Prediction of severe acute pancreatitis using classification and regression tree analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:3664e71.
[40] Leung TK, Lee CM, Lin SY, Chen HC, Wang HJ, Shen LK, et al. Balthazar computed tomography severity index is superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE II scoring system in predicting acute pancreatitis outcome. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11: 6049e52.
