Utility of the "harmless acute pancreatitis score" in predicting a non-severe course of acute pancreatitis: a pilot study in an Indian cohort

Predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis: Current approaches and future directions

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a sudden-onset inflammatory disease of the pancreas. The severity of AP is classified into mild, moderate, and severe categories based on the presence and persistence of organ failure. Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It requires early recognition for appropriate timely management. Prognostic scores for predicting SAP incorporating many clinical, laboratory, and radiological parameters have been developed in the past. However, all of these prognostic scores have low positive predictive value for SAP and some of these scores require >24 h for assessment. There is a need to develop biomarkers that can accurately identify patients at risk for SAP early in the course of the presentation. In this review, we aim to provide a summary of the most commonly utilized prognostic scores for AP and discuss future directions.

Acute pancreatitis: A review of diagnosis, severity prediction and prognosis assessment from imaging technology, scoring system and artificial intelligence

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a potentially life-threatening inflammatory disease of the pancreas, with clinical management determined by the severity of the disease. Diagnosis, severity prediction, and prognosis assessment of AP typically involve the use of imaging technologies, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound, and scoring systems, including Ranson, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, and Bedside Index for Severity in AP scores. Computed tomography is considered the gold standard imaging modality for AP due to its high sensitivity and specificity, while magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound can provide additional information on biliary obstruction and vascular complications. Scoring systems utilize clinical and laboratory parameters to classify AP patients into mild, moderate, or severe categories, guiding treatment decisions, such as intensive care unit admission, early enteral feeding, and antibiotic use. Despite the central role of imaging technologies and scoring systems in AP management, these methods have limitations in terms of accuracy, reproducibility, practicality and economics. Recent advancements of artificial intelligence (AI) provide new opportunities to enhance their performance by analyzing vast amounts of clinical and imaging data. AI algorithms can analyze large amounts of clinical and imaging data, identify scoring system patterns, and predict the clinical course of disease. AI-based models have shown promising results in predicting the severity and mortality of AP, but further validation and standardization are required before widespread clinical application. In addition, understanding the correlation between these three technologies will aid in developing new methods that can accurately, sensitively, and specifically be used in the diagnosis, severity prediction, and prognosis assessment of AP through complementary advantages.

Validation of the Revised Atlanta Criteria in determining the severity of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Determining the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) is crucial for patient management. The aim of our study was to assess the accuracy and limitations of the Revised Atlanta Criteria (RAC) in determining the severity of AP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was retrospectively conducted on AP patients admitted to the Gastroenterology Department of Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine. The severity, morphology and local complications of AP were evaluated according to the RAC. Laboratory parameters, clinical scores predicting disease severity and Computer Tomography Severity Index scores were assessed.

RESULTS

The study group included 113 patients. Ninety-eight (86.7%) had interstitial edematous, and 15 (13.3%) had necrotizing pancreatitis. AP pancreatitis was mild in 69 (61.1%), moderate in 33 (29.2%), and severe in 11 (9.7%). Compared to the moderate group, patients in the severe group had a higher hematocrit, creatinine, SIRS and BISAP scores at admission and more length of hospital stay, more ICU requirements, and higher mortality rates ( P  < 0.05). Eleven patients had single or multiple persistent organ failure (POF). The mortality rate of patients who developed early POF (n = 6) was higher compared to the group of patients who developed late POF (n = 2) (83.3% and 40%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Severity assessment using the RAC in patients with AP is consistent with laboratory parameters and scoring systems predicting severity. Severe pancreatitis cases who develop early POF may be classified separately.

Harmless Acute Pancreatitis Negative among Cases of Acute Pancreatitis in a Tertiary Care Centre: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Acute Pancreatitis is a common disease, diagnosed in about 3% of cases presenting with abdominal pain. Severe disease with multiple systemic complications develops in 10-20% of the cases which require intensive care in specialized centres. Harmless acute pancreatitis score is a simple and economical score predicting the non-severe course of disease within 30 minutes of admission. The aim of our study was to find the prevalence of harmless (harmless acute pancreatitis) among cases of acute pancreatitis in a tertiary care centre.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted after obtaining the ethical approval (Reference no. 344/2076/77). The study was carried out from September 2019 to February 2020 taking 50 patients with the first attack of acute pancreatitis. Convenient sampling was done. Harmless acute pancreatitis score prediction of severe disease and final outcome as severe or non-severe was noted with predefined severity criteria. Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and results represented in tables and charts. Point estimate at 95% was done and frequency and percentage were calculated.

RESULTS

Out of 50 patients with first attack of acute pancreatitis, using the harmless acute pancreatitis score, the prevalence of harmless acute pancreatitis was 22 (56%) (44.45-67.5 at 90% Confidence Interval).

CONCLUSIONS

The harmless acute pancreatitis score is an easy, less expensive, quick and promising early scoring system for prediction of non-severe courses of acute pancreatitis. The prevalence of harmless (harmless acute pancreatitis) among cases of acute pancreatitis was found to be similar to other studies.

The harmless acute pancreatitis score (HAPS) identifies non-severe patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We previously described a scoring system to identify patients with harmless acute pancreatitis as defined by absence of pancreatic necrosis, no need for artificial ventilation or dialysis, and non-fatal course. This scoring system, the Harmless Acute Pancreatitis Score (HAPS), can be quickly calculated from three parameters: absence of abdominal tenderness or rebound, normal hematocrit and normal creatinine level. We aim to assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of the HAPS by performing a meta-analysis of subsequently published studies.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using Pubmed, Web of Science^TM and Google Scholar. We used random effects models, with maximum likelihood estimates, to estimate the PPV of HAPS. We produced forest plots and used the I² statistic to quantify heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty reports covering 6374 patients were identified. The overall PPV based on 16 studies that closely followed the original description of the HAPS system was 97% (95%CI 95-99%) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 76%; P < 0.01). For 11 studies in which HAPS was used to identify patients with mild AP, the overall PPV dropped to 83% (74-91%). For 8 studies in which HAPS was used to predict non-fatal course the overall PPV was 98% (97-100%).

CONCLUSION

The HAPS, if used as originally defined, accurately identifies patients with non-severe AP who will not require ICU care and facilitate selection of patients who can be discharged after a short stay on a general ward or can even be cared for at home. This could free hospital beds for other purposes and decrease healthcare costs.

Ranson score to stratify severity in Acute Pancreatitis remains valid - Old is gold

Introduction: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common gastrointestinal disease with a wide spectrum of severity and morbidity. Developed in 1974, the Ranson score was the first scoring system to prognosticate AP. Over the past decades, while the Ranson score remains widely used, it was identified to have certain limitations, such as having low predictive power. It has also been criticized for its 48-hour requirement for computation of the final score, which has been argued to potentially delay management. With advancements in our understanding of AP, is the Ranson score still relevant as an effective prognostication system for AP?Areas covered: This review summarizes the available evidence comparing Ranson score with other conventional and novel scoring systems, in terms of prognostic accuracy, benefits, limitations and clinical applicability. It also evaluates the effectiveness of Ranson score with regard to the Revised Atlanta Classification.Expert opinion: The Ranson score consistently exhibits comparable prognostic accuracy to other newer scoring systems, and the 48-hour timeframe for computing the full Ranson score is an inherent strength, not a weakness. These aspects, coupled with relative ease of use, practicality and universality of the score, advocate for the continued relevance of the Ranson score in modern clinical practice.

The Value of Managing Acute Pancreatitis With Standardized Order Sets to Achieve "Perfect Care"

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to define perfect care index (PCI) metrics and to evaluate whether implementation of standardized order sets would improve outcomes without increasing hospital-based charges in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP).

METHODS

This is a retrospective, pre-post, observational study measuring clinical quality, processes of care, and hospital-based charges at a single tertiary care center. The first data set included AP patients from August 2011 to December 2014 (n = 219) before the implementation of a standardized order set (Methodist Acute Pancreatitis Protocol [MAPP]) and AP patients after MAPP implementation from January 2015 to September 2018 (n = 417). The second data set included AP patients (n = 150 in each group) from January 2013 to September 2014 (pre-MAPP) and January 2018 to September 2019 (post-MAPP) to evaluate perfect care between the 2 cohorts after controlling for systemic inflammatory response syndrome at baseline. Length of stay, PCI, and hospital-based charges were measured.

RESULTS

The post-MAPP cohort had a significantly shorter length of stay (median, 3 days vs 4 days; P = 0.01). In the second data set, PCI significantly increased after implementation of MAPP order sets (5.3%-35.3%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The MAPP order sets increased the value of care by improving clinical outcomes without increasing hospital-based charges.

Recent Advances in Diagnosis and Severity Assessment of Acute Pancreatitis

The incidence and prevalence of acute pancreatitis (AP) is increasing over time. The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is established by revised Atlanta criteria (2012). Multiple criteria and scoring systems have been used for assessment of severity of AP. Majority of acute pancreatitis cases (80%) are mild, the challenge remains in early diagnosis, severity assessment and treatment of severe AP and its complications. Assessment of severity of AP is important part of management because line of treatment depends on aetiology and severity of acute pancreatitis. In this article a comprehensive review of recent advances in diagnosis and severity assessment of acute pancreatitis has been described.

DIFFERENT SCORING SYSTEMS IN ACUTE ALCOHOLIC PANCREATITIS: WHICH ONE TO FOLLOW? AN ONGOING DILEMA

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is a common disorder in medical practice. In recent times, management has changed drastically with majority of decisions like intravenous antibiotics, negative suction with Ryle's tube and surgical interventions like necrosectomy etc based on severity of the disease. There are different scores in use to assess severity of disease but the relative efficacy has remained a debatable subject.

OBJECTIVE

The present study was thus done to investigate the predictive accuracy of different scoring systems in acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Fifty patients of acute pancreatitis admitted in medicine ward of Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, India, were taken for study after fulfilling eligibility criteria. These patients were investigated at admission and followed up prospectively. The severity of pancreatitis was classified for each of these patients as per Revised Atlanta System of Classification. Commonly used scoring systems pertaining to acute pancreatitis, viz, BISAP, Ranson, APACHE II and modified computed tomography severity index (CTSI) were calculated. Subsequently these scores were then correlated with severity, presence of organ failure, occurrence of local complications and final outcome of the patients.

RESULTS

Out of 50 patients, etiology was chronic alcohol intake in all but one with idiopathic pancreatitis. The mean age of the study population was 42.06±13.27 years. 32% of these patients had pancreatic necrosis, 40% had peripancreatic collections. 56% of them had mild acute pancreatitis, 24% had moderately severe acute pancreatitis, while 20% had severe acute pancreatitis. APACHE II had the highest accuracy in predicting severity, organ failure and fatal outcomes. As far as these parameters were concerned, the negative predictive values of BISAP score were also considerable. Modified CTSI score was accurate in predicting local complications but had limited accuracy in other predictions.

CONCLUSION

APACHE II emerged as most reliable scoring system followed by BISAP and Ranson in management of the patients with acute pancreatitis. But in constraints of time and resources, even BISAP score with its significant negative predictive values served as a valuable tool for assessing and managing these patients.

Ghrelin and gastroparesis as early predictors of clinical outcomes in acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Impaired motor and hormonal gastrointestinal functions have been implicated in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis. The aim of the present study was to investigate the predictive value of the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index and serum ghrelin in the development of clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

This was a prospective clinical study. The Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index and serum ghrelin were measured for 48 h after hospitalization. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index total score alone on day 2 was a significant predictor of oral feeding intolerance in both unadjusted (odds ratio 1.21 (1.01-1.46), P = 0.04) and adjusted (odds ratio 1.30 (1.01-1.69), P = 0.05) analyses. Adding ghrelin to Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index further improved prediction in both unadjusted (odds ratio 1.26 (1.02-1.56), P = 0.03) and adjusted (odds ratio 1.53 (1.00-2.35), P = 0.05) analyses.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study demonstrates that the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index has a potential to be used as a predictor of oral feeding intolerance. Ghrelin, when combined with the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index, may further improve the predictive accuracy. These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies.

Correlation of high sensitivity C-reactive protein, neutrophil and lymphocyte ratio and extra-pancreatic inflammation on CT score with disease severity in alcoholic acute pancreatitis patients

AIM: To assess the correlation of serum high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) level, neutrophil and lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and extra-pancreatic inflammation on CT (EPIC) score with disease severity in alcoholic acute pancreatitis (AAP) patients.

METHODS: One hundred and six patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) treated at our hospital from April 2013 to April 2014, including 44 patients with AAP as an observation group, and 62 patients without AAP as a control group, were included in this study. All patients received blood tests and abdominal CT examination within 24 h of admission to hospital. Serum hs-CRP levels, NLR and EPIC score were compared between the two groups to explore the relationship between these indexes and AAP illness severity.

RESULTS: The proportion of male patients, proportion of SAP patients, serum hs-CRP levels, NLR and EPIC score were significantly higher, but the age was significantly younger in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05 for all). In the observation group, SAP patients had significantly higher serum hs-CRP levels (65.45 mg/L ± 15.43 mg/L vs 42.13 mg/L ± 13.76 mg/L), NLR (14.64 ± 4.65 vs 7.12 ± 2.75) and EPIC score (4.23 ± 0.54 vs 1.72 ± 1.72) than those with mild acute pancreatitis (t = 2.652, 2.903, and 2.886, P < 0.05). Spearman correlation analysis showed that serum hs-CRP levels, NLR and EPIC were significantly correlated with the AAP severity (r = 0.539, 0.626, and 0.507, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: AAP tends to occur in young and middle-aged men and is associated with a higher incidence of SAP. Serum hs-CRP levels, NLR and EPIC score are significantly higher in AAP patients than in non-AAP patients. Serum hs-CRP levels, NLR and EPIC score can be used as effective indexes for evaluating the severity of AAP.

Acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent data on classification systems, cause, risk factors, severity prediction, nutrition, and drug treatment of acute pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Comparison of the Revised Atlanta Classification and Determinant Based Classification has shown heterogeneous results. Simvastatin has a protective effect against acute pancreatitis. Young black male, alcohol, smoldering symptoms, and subsequent diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis are risk factors associated with readmissions after acute pancreatitis. A reliable clinical or laboratory marker or a scoring system to predict severity is lacking. The PYTHON trial has shown that oral feeding with on demand nasoenteric tube feeding after 72 h is as good as nasoenteric tube feeding within 24 h in preventing infections in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. Male sex, multiple organ failure, extent of pancreatic necrosis, and heterogeneous collection are factors associated with failure of percutaneous drainage of pancreatic collections.

SUMMARY

The newly proposed classification systems of acute pancreatitis need to be evaluated more critically. New biomarkers are needed for severity prediction. Further well designed studies are required to assess the type of enteral nutritional formulations for acute pancreatitis. The optimal minimally invasive method or combination to debride the necrotic collections is evolving. There is a great need for a drug to treat the disease early on to prevent morbidity and mortality.

Effect of harmless acute pancreatitis score, red cell distribution width and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio on the mortality of patients with nontraumatic acute pancreatitis at the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Harmless acute pancreatitis score (HAPS), neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio and red blood cell distribution width (RDW) are used to determine the early prognosis of patients diagnosed with nontraumatic acute pancreatitis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis (K 85.9) in the ED according to the ICD10 coding during one year were included in the study. Patients with chronic pancreatitis and those who had missing data in their files were excluded from the study. Patients who did not have computed tomography (CT) in the ED were not included in the study.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 322 patients were included in the study. The median age of the patients was 53.1 (IQR=36-64). Of the patients, 68.1% (n=226) had etiological causes of the biliary tract. The mortality rate of these patients within the first 48 hours was 4.3% (n=14). In the logistic regression analysis performed by using Balthazar classification, HAPS score, RDW, neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio, age, diabetes mellitus and systolic blood pressure, the only independent variable in determining mortality was assigned as Balthazar classification (OR: 15; 95% CI: 3.5 to 64.4).

CONCLUSIONS

HAPS, neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio and RDW were not effective in determining the mortality of nontraumatic acute pancreatitis cases within the first 48 hours. The only independent variable for determining the mortality was Balthazar classification.

Antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis: an Indian multicenter observational study

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic antibiotics are used frequently for acute pancreatitis (AP). Consensus guidelines do not recommend this currently, based on moderate quality evidence. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the antibiotic use pattern in AP in India and propose a risk-directed approach to antibiotic use in AP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This multicenter study was conducted from 1 May 2013 to 31 July 2013. Eleven participants from eight tertiary centers completed a questionnaire that captured patient demographics, etiology, admission status, presence of (peri)pancreatic necrosis, severity of pancreatitis, details of antibiotic use, and clinical outcomes (total hospital stay, persistent organ failure, need for ICU, total days in ICU, development of infections, in-hospital mortality).

RESULTS

A total of 200 proformas were analyzed. Seventy-three (36.5 %) had acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). Eighty-nine (44.5 %), 52 (26 %), and 55 (27.5 %) patients had mild AP (MAP), moderately severe AP (MSAP), and severe AP (SAP), respectively. Forty-five (22.5 %) patients developed infections (unifocal 29; multifocal 16). One hundred thirty-four (67 %) patients received antibiotics, of which 89 (66.4 %) received prophylactic, while 45 (33.6 %) received therapeutic antibiotics. The distribution of antibiotic use according to the severity of AP was 43 (48.3 %) in patients with MAP (prophylactic in 41; therapeutic in 2), 36 (69.2 %) in patients with MSAP (prophylactic in 29; therapeutic in 7), and 55 (100 %) in patients with SAP (prophylactic in 19; therapeutic in 36). Therapeutic antibiotics were prescribed based on culture and sensitivity in 21 (46.7 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite nonrecommendation, prophylactic antibiotics are used frequently in AP. We emphasize on the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials on prophylactic antibiotics for AP based on a risk-directed approach, rather than a "blanket approach."