DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS BETWEEN BILIARY AND NONBILIARY ACUTE PANCREATITIS: WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF LABORATORY TESTS?

BACKGROUND

The differential diagnosis of the causal factors of acute pancreatitis is fundamental for its clinical follow-up, becoming relevant to establishing laboratory criteria that elucidate the difference between biliary and nonbiliary causes.

AIM

The aim of this study was to establish criteria based on laboratory tests for the differential diagnosis between acute pancreatitis of biliary and nonbiliary causes and to identify laboratory tests with sufficient sensitivity to propose the creation of an algorithm for differential diagnosis between the causes.

METHODS

The research consisted of observational analysis, with a cross-sectional design of laboratory tests of two groups of patients with acute pancreatitis: group A: nonbiliary cause and group B: biliary cause. Hematocrit, white blood cell count, lactate dehydrogenase, glucose, lipase, amylase, total bilirubin, oxalacetic transaminase, pyruvic transaminase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, and alkaline phosphatase were investigated. Data were submitted to nonparametric tests and receiver operating characteristics.

RESULTS

Hematocrit values, number of leukocytes, lactate dehydrogenase, and glucose showed no significant difference between the groups (p>0.1). Lipase, amylase, total bilirubin, oxalacetic transaminase, pyruvic transaminase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, and alkaline phosphatase values showed a significant difference between groups (p<0.05). The oxalacetic transaminase, pyruvic transaminase, and alkaline phosphatase tests were most sensitive in determining the biliary cause, allowing the establishment of a cutoff point by the receiver operating characteristic test: pyruvic transaminase: 123.0 U/L (sensitivity: 69.2%; specificity: 81.5%), oxalacetic transaminase: 123.5 U/L (sensitivity: 57.3%; specificity: 78.8%), and alkaline phosphatase: 126.5 U/L (sensitivity: 66.1%; specificity: 69.4%), from which the probability of a correct answer increases.

CONCLUSION

It was possible to establish criteria based on laboratory tests for the differential diagnosis between acute pancreatitis of biliary and nonbiliary origin; however, the tests did not show enough sensitivity to propose the creation of an algorithm for differential diagnosis between the same causes.

Coronavirus: does its activation of archetypes of evil cause added psychological suffering?

Fear and grief caused by the pandemic have produced a powerful unconscious narrative in the collective psyche that the coronavirus is driven by an innately evil, and possibly divine, force. The resulting archetypal dimension of fear causes an extra layer of psychological suffering in individuals. This paper discusses how and why this narrative was created and why it is so compelling by looking at 1) the myth‐making nature of the human psyche, 2) the psychodynamics of fear that drive the narrative, 3) the properties of the coronavirus and the pandemic that activate negative poles of some archetypes, in particular, archetypes of evil, and 4) asking how analytical psychology can help ease psychological suffering caused by these negative narratives, where one possibility is to invoke the transcendent function. The author’s personal experiences as both biochemist and analytical psychologist elucidate how the transcendent function can promote healing.