World J Gastroenterol. 2013 September 21; 19(35): 5798-5805.
Published online 2013 September 21. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i35.5798.
Criteria for the diagnosis and severity stratification of acute pancreatitis
Makoto Otsuki, Kazunori Takeda, Seiki Matsuno, Yasuyuki Kihara, Masaru Koizumi, Masahiko Hirota, Tetsuhide Ito, Keisho Kataoka, Motoji Kitagawa, Kazuo Inui and Yoshifumi Takeyama.
Makoto Otsuki, Kitasuma Hospital, Kobe 654-0102, Japan
Makoto Otsuki, Yasuyuki Kihara, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, School of Medicine, Kitakyuushu, 807-8555, Japan
Kazunori Takeda, Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Sendai Medical Center, Sendai 983-8520, Japan
Seiki Matsuno, Towada Shiritsu Central Hospital, Towada, Aomori 034-0093, Japan
Yasuyuki Kihara, Department of Gastroenterology, Kitakyushu Central Hospital, Kitakyushu, Fikuoka 800-0257, Japan
Masaru Koizumi, Kurihara Central Hospital, Kurihara, Miyagi 987-2203, Japan
Masahiko Hirota, Kumamoto Regional Medical Center, Health Care Center, Kumamoto, Kumamoto 860-0811, Japan
Tetsuhide Ito, Department of Medicine and Bioregulatory Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
Keisho Kataoka, Otsu Municipal Hospital, Otsu, Shiga 520-0804, Japan
Motoji Kitagawa, Department of Nutritional Science, Nagoya University of Arts and Sciences, Nissin, Aichi 470-0196, Japan
Kazuo Inui, Department of Internal Medicine, Second Teaching Hospital, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Nagoya 454-8509, Japan
Yoshifumi Takeyama, Department of Surgery, Kinki University School of Medicine, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan
Author contributions: Otsuki M, Takeda K, Matsuno S, Kihara Y, Koizumi M, Hirota M, Ito T, Kataoka K, Kitagawa M, Inui K and Takeyama Y designed the study, and collected, analyzed and interpreted the clinical data; Otsuki M wrote the manuscript.
Correspondence to: Makoto Otsuki, MD, PhD, Kitasuma Hospital, 1-1-1 Higashi-Shirakawa dai, Suma, Kobe, Hyogo 654-0102, Japan. mac.otsk@gmail.com
Telephone: +81-78-7436666 Fax: +81-78-7431230
Received January 7, 2013; Revised June 14, 2013; Accepted June 18, 2013;
Abstract
Recent diagnostic and therapeutic progress for severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) remarkably decreased the case-mortality rate. To further decrease the mortality rate of SAP, it is important to precisely evaluate the severity at an early stage, and initiate appropriate treatment as early as possible. Research Committee of Intractable Diseases of the Pancreas in Japan developed simpler criteria combining routinely available data with clinical signs. Severity can be evaluated by laboratory examinations or by clinical signs, reducing the defect values of the severity factors. Moreover, the severity criteria considered laboratory/clinical severity scores and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) findings as independent risk factors. Thus, CE-CT scans are not necessarily required to evaluate the severity of acute pancreatitis. There was no fatal case in mild AP diagnosed by the CE-CT severity score, whereas case-mortality rate in those with SAP was 14.8%. Case-mortality of SAP that fulfilled both the laboratory/clinical and the CE-CT severity criteria was 30.8%. It is recommended, therefore, to perform CE-CT examination to clarify the prognosis in those patients who were diagnosed as SAP by laboratory/clinical severity criteria. Because the mortality rate of these patients with SAP is high, such patients should be transferred to advanced medical units.
Keywords: Severe acute pancreatitis, Severity score, Scoring system, Prognostic factors, Case-mortality
Core tip: The new severity criteria of acute pancreatitis (AP) consist of two independent prognostic factors; laboratory and/or clinical severity scores and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) findings. Mortality rate of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) that satisfied both laboratory/clinical and CE-CT severity criteria was as high as 30.8%. It is recommended to perform CE-CT examination in those patients who were diagnosed as SAP by laboratory/clinical severity criteria. Patients who fulfill both severity criteria should be transferred to advanced medical units. The revised criteria are extremely useful to detect SAP at an early stage of AP.
INTRODUCTION
Acute pancreatitis (AP) involves various clinical features from mild cases with only transient abdominal symptoms to severe fatal cases. It is important to identify patients with AP who are at risk for developing persistent organ failure early in the course of the disease[1]. Because case-mortality rate of severe AP (SAP) at the survey conducted by the Research Committee of Intractable Diseases of the Pancreas (RCIDP) supported by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare was as high as 30%[2], SAP has been designated as an intractable disease by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare since 1990, and the cost of treatment for SAP is paid in full by the government[3]. With the start of the medical expense payment system for patients with SAP, the RCIDP established the criteria for the diagnosis and severity stratification of AP. The severity scoring system was revised and the 2002 version was developed in 2002 (JPN criteria 2002)[1,4-6].
The criteria 2002 were complicated and composed of 18 items of prognostic factors; 5 clinical sign items, 10 blood test items, computed tomography (CT) findings, the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and age[1,4-6]. The attending physician cannot remember all or even most of the factors. Moreover, these numerous parameters are not available soon enough or not available as the routine laboratory tests at all hospitals. There is a possibility, therefore, that incomplete examinations or defect values of the prognostic factors underestimated the severity of AP, resulting in insufficient and inadequate treatment of the disease, and aggravated AP[1]. There is another possibility that incomplete severity evaluation of AP overlooked the predicted serious cases to transfer to medical institutions with the high-level medical facilities and intensive care.
To decrease the mortality rate of the SAP, it is important to precisely evaluate the severity early in the disease and initiate appropriate treatment as early as possible[7-9]. The Ranson[10] and the modified Glasgow (Imrie) scores[11] represent a major advantage in the evaluation of the disease severity in AP but require 48 h of data collection before the severity can be evaluated. Thereafter, several clinical scoring systems such as acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score systems[12-15], SIRS[16], bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP)[17] and harmless acute pancreatitis score (HAPS)[18,19] for evaluating AP have been developed, but these methods to predict the development of SAP are complicated, cumbersome, and insufficiently sensitive[20]. Recently a web-based consultative process involving multiple international pancreatic societies revised and updated the Atlanta classification of AP[21-23]. Severity of the disease is classified as mild, moderate, and severe by the absence or presence of organ failure and local or systemic complications. Moderately SAP has transient organ failure of < 2 d, while SAP is defined by the presence of persistent organ failure for ≥ 2 d. Although the revised Atlanta classification of AP is simple and will help the clinician to predict the outcome of patients with AP, it is unable to differentiate between moderately SAP and SAP before 48 h after onset. It is expected, therefore, to develop simpler severity scoring system with routinely available data that predicts outcome, the system that clinicians can use at the bedside.
PROBLEM OF THE PREVIOUS JPN CRITERIA FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND STRATIFICATION OF THE SEVERITY
JPN clinical criteria for the diagnosis of AP proposed in 2002 are (1) acute abdominal pain and tenderness in the upper abdomen; (2) elevated pancreatic enzyme levels in serum, urine or ascitic fluid; and (3) ultrasonographic (US) or radiologic abnormalities characteristic of AP[1,4-6]. When at least two of the above conditions are present, then excluding other pancreatic and acute abdominal diseases of different causes can make the diagnosis of AP. Acute exacerbation of chronic pancreatitis is also included in this category. When diagnosis is confirmed by surgery and/or autopsy, the event has to be duly recorded[1,4-6].
The JPN severity criteria 2002 consisted of 5 clinical sign items (shock, respiratory failure, mental disturbance, severe infection, hemorrhagic diathesis), 10 blood test items [base excess (BE), hematocrit (Ht), blood urea nitrogen (BUN) or creatinine, calcium concentration (Ca), fasting blood glucose, arterial oxygen saturation (PaO2), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), total protein, prothrombin time (PT), and platelet count], and CT findings. In cases with severity scores ≥ 2 points, SIRS and an age over 70 had to be added to the prognostic factors[1,4-6]. These items of prognostic factors were all scored as severity scores, 1 or 2 points for each positive factor, and the highest possible total score was 27 points. However, blood glucose level, serum total protein concentrations and Ht are inappropriate for the prognostic factors after the initiation of the treatment of the disease because initial fluid resuscitation might have an influence on the measurement value of these laboratory data. In addition, the severity criteria had redundant prognostic factors indicating similar clinical condition such as shock and the decrease in BE, and dyspnea and fall of PaO2. Bleeding tendency, platelet counts and PT also indicate similar clinical condition. Moreover, the clinical signs such as severe infection that rarely develops within 48 h after disease onset were implicated in the severity criteria. The severity criteria included CT grade by the non-enhanced plain CT scan as one of the prognostic factors. Plain CT scans can evaluate peripancreatic inflammatory changes, but are unable to identify pancreatic necrosis that is closely associated with various complications and prognosis[21,24-26].
Usefulness of the JPN criteria 2002 for severity stratification was evaluated in 1131 consecutive patients with AP that had been admitted to high specific or intensive therapy units of the affiliated research group hospitals from January 1 1995 to December 31 1998 (survey 1998; before the establishment of the JPN criteria 2002), and in 1768 patients who visited the hospitals in the year 2003 (survey 2003; from January 1 to December 31; after the establishment of the criteria in 2002)[1,4-6]. The results revealed that the severity score have almost the same value for assessment as the APACHE II score and the Ranson score[4].
In survey 1998, case-fatality rate of mild, moderate and SAP was 0.2%, 1.6% and 13.8%, respectively, whereas it was 0.1%, 0.7% and 9.0%, respectively, in survey 2003[1,4-6]. The case-mortality rate of mild and moderate AP was quite low, and there was little clinical significance to differentiate moderate from mild AP. The case-mortality rate of SAP at stage 2 (3.7%) was low compared with that at stage 3 (25.4%) in survey 2003[1,4-6]. Therefore, it was inappropriate to classify these patients at stage 2 as SAP and identify as applicants for the medical expense payment system[3].
Although the previous severity criteria classified prognostic factors into 2 groups; each of the items in the first group has 2 points, while that in the second group is 1[1,4-6], there is no significant difference in case mortality between these 2 groups with different prognostic scores. JPN severity criteria 2002 were complicated and included several prognostic factors which cannot be measured at outpatient clinic or emergency room, especially at night. In addition, multiple scoring systems of the severity criteria were very cumbersome to use and they suffer from their complexity[1,4-6]. Indeed, 56% of 1768 clinical records of AP in survey 2003 had defect values of more than 3 items of 11 laboratory examinations. Especially, BE was measured in only 25.1%, and PT and PaO2 were measured in only 38.3% and 38.7%, respectively[1]. These results indicate that even if we can diagnose the patient as AP, in the presence of many defect values a correct stage classification is difficult, and it is very likely that we underestimate the severity.
Because CT grade was included as one of the prognostic factors[1,4-6], it was required to perform CT examination repeatedly to precisely evaluate the severity and stage of AP. However, it is unacceptable to perform CT examination repeatedly[27], and thus one of the prognostic factors remains as a defect value. In addition, there are many hospitals that cannot perform CT examination and laboratory tests such as PT, especially at night. This might be one of the reasons for many defect values in the clinical records of AP[1].
NEW DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA OF AP
JPN diagnostic criteria of AP are revised taking into account of the recent progress of imaging studies and laboratory examinations of pancreatic enzymes. The revised clinical criteria for the diagnosis of AP are (1) acute pain and tenderness in the upper abdomen; (2) elevated pancreatic enzyme levels in in blood and/or urine; and (3) ultrasound (US), CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities of the pancreas characteristic of AP[1]. When at least two of the above conditions are present, the diagnosis of AP can be made by excluding other pancreatic and acute abdominal diseases of other causes than pancreatitis. Acute exacerbation of chronic pancreatitis is included in this category.
Measurement of pancreatic enzyme levels in serum has been generally adopted in clinical practice, whereas those in ascitic fluid and urine are rarely determined. Since, however, recent studies have demonstrated that urinary strip tests for trypsinogen activation peptide (TAP) and trypsinogen-2 provide a reliable early diagnosis of AP[28-35], the revised diagnostic criteria included the elevation of the pancreatic enzymes in serum and/or urine, excluding that in ascitic fluid. It is well known, however, that some patients with AP, mostly alcoholic etiology, show normoamylasemia[28], and that serum amylase level rises only slightly in many patients with acute exacerbations of chronic alcoholic pancreatitis[36]. Moreover, serum amylase level seldom rises in AP caused by hyperlipidemia[37,38] and in those with pancreatic insufficiency[39]. In addition, the elevation of serum amylase level is only transient and declines within 3 d after onset of AP[28,40]. On the other hand, abnormally high values of serum lipase persist for longer period than that of serum amylase and are observed even in cases of alcohol-induced pancreatitis[41]. Although a recent case report of AP has demonstrated that serum amylase and lipase remain normal throughout the acute phase of AP in a man with pancreatic insufficiency and cystic fibrosis[39], serum lipase is considered to be a more reliable diagnostic marker of AP than serum amylase. Therefore, the revised diagnostic criteria recommend determining pancreatitis specific enzymes in serum and/or urine such as pancreatic-type amylase[42,43] and lipase[44].
The new diagnostic criteria require the presence of clear findings indicating AP by imaging studies such as US, CT and MRI. US can visualize pancreatic enlargement, inflammatory changes around the pancreas, and abnormal findings associated with AP such as the presence of ascitic fluid and gallstones. US examination can be performed repeatedly at bedside. CT provides clear local images without being affected by the adipose tissue in the abdominal wall and abdominal cavity[14,45]. CT findings of an enlarged pancreas, inflammatory changes around the pancreas and fluid collections are useful marker for the diagnosis of AP. Thus, CT is the most important imaging procedures for the diagnosis of AP[46-48]. MRI scanning can also visualize the enlargement of the pancreas and the inflammatory changes around the pancreas[49,50].
SEVERITY CRITERIA OF AP BY MULTIPLE-SCORING SYSTEM
Following the correct diagnosis of AP, severity stratification should be performed promptly and repeatedly, in particular for the first 48 h after the onset of the disease[1]. Early recognition of severe disease and application of appropriate therapy require vigilance as decisions regarding management need to be made shortly after admission.
The revised severity score put the redundant factors that show similar clinical conditions together into one, and deleted the unclear clinical signs. Since the new severity criteria combined laboratory data with clinical signs, the severity of AP can be evaluated by one of these findings. BE can be substituted by shock (systolic blood pressure less than 80 mmHg), PaO2 by respiratory failure (artificial respiratory ventilation), and BUN or creatinine by oliguria (urinary volume less than 400 mL/d after hydration). Thus, SAP can be properly diagnosed by reducing underestimation of severity by the defect values (Table 1).
Table 1
Table 1
Laboratory/clinical criteria for grading the severity of acute pancreatitis
Among several serum biochemical markers that have been developed for severity stratification of AP, C-reactive protein (CRP) remains the most useful[19,32,51-54]. Although its increase delays, peaking not earlier than 72 h after the onset of symptoms, it is accurate and widely available. According to United Kingdom guidelines for the management of AP[55] and the Working Party of the Program Committee of the Bangkok World Congress of Gastroenterology 2002[56], CRP ≥ 15 mg/dL is adopted as a prognostic factor. Moreover, Gardner et al[57] have demonstrated that an age above 70 years is an independent risk factor for mortality in patients admitted with SAP. Based on these previous studies, the new severity criteria included CRP and age of the patient. In spite of these changes, the new severity criteria that employ routinely available data are simple and easy to remember.
Since the contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) is the mainstay of imaging patients with AP and recommended for the evaluation of the severity of AP[20,24-27,34,35,49], the revised severity criteria included the CE-CT findings of the presence and extent of pancreatic necrosis, and the extent of peripancreatic inflammatory changes (Table 2). The revised Atlanta classification provided precise definitions of CE-CT findings, including peripancreatic necrosis, walled-off-necrosis and pseudocyst[21,22]. Although the revised Atlanta classification suggested that pancreatic necrosis can rarely be identified accurately during the first several days of hospitalization, CE-CT findings help us to decide special measures such as continuous regional arterial infusion (CRAI) of protease inhibitors and antibiotics, and continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF)[58-60]. Once it is thought that contrast medium exacerbates pancreatitis[61-63], but denied by another studies[64,65]. Since, however, there is a possibility that intravenous contrast media extend pancreatic necrosis and exacerbate renal impairment[61-63], vigorous intravenous hydration for the purpose of intravascular resuscitation is important during and after CE-CT examination. Attending physicians must aware of the possibility that the contrast medium aggravates renal dysfunction associated with SAP.
Table 2
Table 2
Contrast-enhanced computed tomography criteria for grading the severity of acute pancreatitis
The new severity criteria considered laboratory/clinical symptoms and radiographic features of CE-CT scans as independent risk factors. Indeed, Leung et al[14] have demonstrated that CT severity index is a useful tool in assessing the severity and outcome of AP, and superior to Ranson score[10] and APACHE II scoring system[12-15] in predicting AP outcome. Thus, the CE-CT is not necessarily required to evaluate the severity of the patients with AP. Preliminary study revealed that the case-fatality in patients with the CE-CT severity score 1 was 3.3%, while that in those with severity score 2 and 3 points was 21.9% and 33.3%, respectively. Thus, the severity scores of CE-CT ≥ 2 points was defined as SAP (Table 2).
Analysis of case records of 1337 consecutive patients with AP in survey 2003[1,5,6] in that more than 5 items of 9 prognostic factors of the new severity criteria were recorded revealed that case-fatality rate of patients with severity score point 0 and point 1 was nearly the same (0.2% vs 0.7%), whereas that of patients with severity score 2 and 3 points was greatly different (2.6% vs 11.1%). Thus, the new criteria divided the severity of AP into mild (severity score ≤ 2 points) and SAP (severity score ≥ 3 points). Based on this classification, case-mortality rate of mild AP and SAP was 0.83% (9/1183) and 19.5% (30/154), respectively.
VERIFICATION OF THE NEW SEVERITY CRITERIA
Usefulness of the new severity criteria was prospectively studied in 156 patients with AP. CE-CT severity score was evaluated in 142 of these 156 patients at the same time with laboratory examinations. Overall case-mortality of 156 patients with AP was 2.6%, and was similar to that reported in nationwide survey in 2003[1,5,6]. Although some survey sheets had defect data of laboratory examinations, most frequently BE (defect value 41.0%) and PaO2 (defect value 41.0%), these data were substituted by clinical signs of shock (defect value 0%) and respiratory failure (defect value 0%), respectively. Therefore, the severity score could be precisely calculated even if these laboratory data were defect values.
The revised severity criteria (Table 1) identified 13.5% of these 156 patients with AP as SAP, whereas 30.8% were diagnosed as SAP if the criteria 2002 were adopted. Case-mortality of SAP diagnosed by the revised criteria was 19.1%, whereas that by the criteria 2002 was only 8.3% due to large number of patients who are diagnosed as SAP (Table 3). The validity of the revised classification was further revealed by the incidence of complications of organ failure. Complications of organ failure were far greater in patients with SAP than in those with mild AP (Table 4). These results clearly indicate that the patients with SAP diagnosed by the revised criteria are suitable as applicants for the medical expense payment system[3].
Table 3
Table 3
Verification of the revised severity criteria
Table 4
Table 4
Relationship between the revised laboratory/clinical or contrast-enhanced computed tomography severity score and incidence of organ failure
Since the new severity criteria consider laboratory data/clinical symptoms, and the CE-CT severity score as independent risk factors, SAP can be diagnosed either by the laboratory/clinical severity criteria or by the CE-CT severity criteria. There was no fatal case of mild AP diagnosed by the laboratory/clinical severity score regardless of CT severity score. Similarly, there was no fatal case of mild AP diagnosed by the CE-CT severity score regardless of laboratory/clinical severity scores (Table 5). Case-mortality rate of patients with SAP diagnosed by the laboratory/clinical severity score was 21.1%, whereas that in those diagnosed by the CE-CT severity score was 14.8%. Case fatality of SAP that fulfilled both laboratory/clinical (severity score ≥ 3 points) and CE-CT severity criteria (severity score ≥ 2 points) was as high as 30.8%. It is recommended, therefore, to perform CE-CT examination to clarify the prognosis in patients who were diagnosed as SAP by laboratory/clinical severity score. Because the mortality rate of these patients with SAP was high, such patients should be transferred to advanced medical units with physicians specializing in intensive care, endoscopic treatment, radiological intervention, and biliary-pancreatic surgery[1,5,6].
Table 5
Table 5
Relationship between the laboratory/clinical and the contrast-enhanced computed tomography severity scores
CONCLUSION
The new severity criteria consist of laboratory examinations combined with clinical symptoms and the CE-CT severity score. The laboratory and/or clinical symptoms and the CE-CT findings are independent risk factors. SAP can be diagnosed either by the severity score alone, or by the CE-CT findings alone. Mortality rate of SAP that fulfilled both laboratory/clinical and CE-CT severity criteria was high. It is recommended, therefore, to perform CE-CT examination in those patients who were diagnosed as SAP by laboratory/clinical severity criteria. Patients with SAP who fulfill both severity criteria should be transferred to advanced medical units. The revised criteria are extremely useful to detect SAP at an early stage of AP.
Footnotes
Supported by A Grant-in-Aid to the Research Committee on Intractable Pancreatic Diseases provided from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
P- Reviewers El-Salhy M, Muscarella P S- Editor Huang XZ L- Editor A E- Editor Ma S
References
1.
Otsuki M, Koizumi M, Ito T, Shimosegawa T. Aggravation factors and fatality rates of acute pancreatitis - analysis of a nationwide survey of acute pancreatitis in Japan. In:Berhardt LV.,editors.Advances in Medicine and Biology. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2013.pp.147-160.
2.
Saitoh Y, Yamamoto Y. Severe acute pancreatitis in Japan. In:Bradley III EL.,editors.Acute pancreatitis: diagnosis and therapy. New York: Raven Press; 1994.pp.139-144.
3.
Yoshida M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Hirata K, Mayumi T, Sekimoto M, Hirota M, Kimura Y, Takeda K, Isaji S. Health insurance system and payments provided to patients for the management of severe acute pancreatitis in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006;13:7-9.[PubMed] [DOI]
4.
Ogawa M, Hirota M, Hayakawa T, Matsuno S, Watanabe S, Atomi Y, Otsuki M, Kashima K, Koizumi M, Harada H. Development and use of a new staging system for severe acute pancreatitis based on a nationwide survey in Japan. Pancreas. 2002;25:325-330.[PubMed] [DOI]
5.
Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Miura F, Hirata K, Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Strasberg S, Pitt H. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:78-82.[PubMed] [DOI]
6.
Otsuki M, Hirota M, Arata S, Koizumi M, Kawa S, Kamisawa T, Takeda K, Mayumi T, Kitagawa M, Ito T. Consensus of primary care in acute pancreatitis in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:3314-3323.[PubMed]
7.
Williams M, Simms HH. Prognostic usefulness of scoring systems in critically ill patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:901-907.[PubMed] [DOI]
8.
Harrison DA, D’Amico G, Singer M. Case mix, outcome, and activity for admissions to UK critical care units with severe acute pancreatitis: a secondary analysis of the ICNARC Case Mix Programme Database. Crit Care. 2007;11 Suppl 1:S1.[PubMed] [DOI]
9.
Juneja D, Gopal PB, Ravula M. Scoring systems in acute pancreatitis: which one to use in intensive care units?. J Crit Care. 2010;25:358.e9-358.e15.[PubMed] [DOI]
10.
Ranson JH, Rifkind KM, Roses DF, Fink SD, Eng K, Spencer FC. Prognostic signs and the role of operative management in acute pancreatitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1974;139:69-81.[PubMed]
11.
Imrie CW, Benjamin IS, Ferguson JC, McKay AJ, Mackenzie I, O’Neill J, Blumgart LH. A single-centre double-blind trial of Trasylol therapy in primary acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 1978;65:337-341.[PubMed] [DOI]
12.
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818-829.[PubMed] [DOI]
13.
Larvin M, McMahon MJ. APACHE-II score for assessment and monitoring of acute pancreatitis. Lancet. 1989;2:201-205.[PubMed] [DOI]
14.
Leung TK, Lee CM, Lin SY, Chen HC, Wang HJ, Shen LK, Chen YY. Balthazar computed tomography severity index is superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE II scoring system in predicting acute pancreatitis outcome. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:6049-6052.[PubMed]
15.
Papachristou GI, Muddana V, Yadav D, O’Connell M, Sanders MK, Slivka A, Whitcomb DC. 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; quiz 442.[PubMed] [DOI]
16.
Singh VK, Wu BU, Bollen TL, Repas K, Maurer R, Mortele KJ, Banks PA. Early systemic inflammatory response syndrome is associated with severe acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:1247-1251.[PubMed] [DOI]
17.
Singh VK, Wu BU, Bollen TL, Repas K, Maurer R, Johannes RS, Mortele KJ, Conwell DL, Banks PA. 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.[PubMed] [DOI]
18.
Oskarsson V, Mehrabi M, Orsini N, Hammarqvist F, Segersvärd R, Andrén-Sandberg A, Sadr Azodi O. Validation of the harmless acute pancreatitis score in predicting nonsevere course of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2011;11:464-468.[PubMed] [DOI]
19.
Lankisch PG, Weber-Dany B, Hebel K, Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB. The harmless acute pancreatitis score: a clinical algorithm for rapid initial stratification of nonsevere disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:702-705; quiz 607.[PubMed] [DOI]
20.
Chauhan S, Forsmark CE. The difficulty in predicting outcome in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:443-445.[PubMed] [DOI]
21.
Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, Tsiotos GG, Vege SS. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2013;62:102-111.[PubMed] [DOI]
22.
Sarr MG. 2012 revision of the Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2013;123:118-124.[PubMed]
23.
Mounzer R, Langmead CJ, Wu BU, Evans AC, Bishehsari F, Muddana V, Singh VK, Slivka A, Whitcomb DC, Yadav D. Comparison of existing clinical scoring systems to predict persistent organ failure in patients with acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;142:1476-1482; quiz e15-6.[PubMed] [DOI]
24.
Bradley EL, Murphy F, Ferguson C. Prediction of pancreatic necrosis by dynamic pancreatography. Ann Surg. 1989;210:495-503; discussion 503-504.[PubMed] [DOI]
25.
Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JH. Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology. 1990;174:331-336.[PubMed]
26.
Kemppainen E, Sainio V, Haapiainen R, Kivisaari L, Kivilaakso E, Puolakkainen P. Early localization of necrosis by contrast-enhanced computed tomography can predict outcome in severe acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 1996;83:924-929.[PubMed] [DOI]
27.
Munoz-Bongrand N, Panis Y, Soyer P, Riché F, Laisné MJ, Boudiaf M, Valleur P. Serial computed tomography is rarely necessary in patients with acute pancreatitis: a prospective study in 102 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;193:146-152.[PubMed]
28.
Clavien PA, Robert J, Meyer P, Borst F, Hauser H, Herrmann F, Dunand V, Rohner A. Acute pancreatitis and normoamylasemia. Not an uncommon combination. Ann Surg. 1989;210:614-620.[PubMed] [DOI]
29.
Neoptolemos JP, Kemppainen EA, Mayer JM, Fitzpatrick JM, Raraty MG, Slavin J, Beger HG, Hietaranta AJ, Puolakkainen PA. Early prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis by urinary trypsinogen activation peptide: a multicentre study. Lancet. 2000;355:1955-1960.[PubMed] [DOI]
30.
Frossard JL. Trypsin activation peptide (TAP) in acute pancreatitis: from pathophysiology to clinical usefulness. JOP. 2001;2:69-77.[PubMed]
31.
Lempinen M, Stenman UH, Finne P, Puolakkainen P, Haapiainen R, Kemppainen E. Trypsinogen-2 and trypsinogen activation peptide (TAP) in urine of patients with acute pancreatitis. J Surg Res. 2003;111:267-273.[PubMed] [DOI]
32.
Al-Bahrani AZ, Ammori BJ. Clinical laboratory assessment of acute pancreatitis. Clin Chim Acta. 2005;362:26-48.[PubMed] [DOI]
33.
Kamer E, Unalp HR, Derici H, Tansug T, Onal MA. Early diagnosis and prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis using the urine trypsinogen-2 dipstick test: a prospective study. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:6208-6212.[PubMed] [DOI]
34.
Huang QL, Qian ZX, Li H. A comparative study of the urinary trypsinogen-2, trypsinogen activation peptide, and the computed tomography severity index as early predictors of the severity of acute pancreatitis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2010;57:1295-1299.[PubMed]
35.
Mayumi T, Inui K, Maetani I, Yokoe M, Sakamoto T, Yoshida M, Ko S, Hirata K, Takada T. Validity of the urinary trypsinogen-2 test in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2012;41:869-875.[PubMed] [DOI]
36.
Eckfeldt JH, Kolars JC, Elson MK, Shafer RB, Levitt MD. Serum tests for pancreatitis in patients with abdominal pain. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1985;109:316-319.[PubMed]
37.
Vissers RJ, Abu-Laban RB, McHugh DF. Amylase and lipase in the emergency department evaluation of acute pancreatitis. J Emerg Med. 1999;17:1027-1037.[PubMed] [DOI]
38.
Weston N, Fernando U, Baskar V. Hypertriglyceridaemia-induced pancreatitis. BMJ Case Rep. 2013;2013:.[PubMed] [DOI]
39.
Turner M, Jackson H, Harle R, Bohmer R, Reid DW. Atypical presentation of acute pancreatitis in a man with pancreatic insufficiency and cystic fibrosis: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2010;4:275.[PubMed] [DOI]
40.
Cucuianu MP, Ionescu NG, Vulcu V, Trif I. Transient elevation of serum bile acids during acute pancreatitis. Int J Pancreatol. 1988;3:151-156.[PubMed]
41.
Gumaste V, Dave P, Sereny G. Serum lipase: a better test to diagnose acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Am J Med. 1992;92:239-242.[PubMed] [DOI]
42.
Otsuki M, Yuu H, Maeda M, Yamasaki T, Okano K, Sakamoto C, Baba S. Relation of electrophoretic pattern of amylase isoenzymes to severity of pancreatic disease. Clin Chim Acta. 1977;79:1-6.[PubMed] [DOI]
43.
Ventrucci M, Gullo L, Daniele C, Bartolucci C, Priori P, Platé L, Bonora G, Labò G. Comparative study of serum pancreatic isoamylase, lipase, and trypsin-like immunoreactivity in pancreatic disease. Digestion. 1983;28:114-121.[PubMed] [DOI]
44.
Lippi G, Valentino M, Cervellin G. Laboratory diagnosis of acute pancreatitis: in search of the Holy Grail. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2012;49:18-31.[PubMed] [DOI]
45.
Silverstein W, Isikoff MB, Hill MC, Barkin J. Diagnostic imaging of acute pancreatitis: prospective study using CT and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137:497-502.[PubMed] [DOI]
46.
Alhajeri A, Erwin S. Acute pancreatitis: value and impact of CT severity index. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:18-20.[PubMed] [DOI]
47.
Bollen TL, Singh VK, Maurer R, Repas K, van Es HW, Banks PA, Mortele KJ. Comparative evaluation of the modified CT severity index and CT severity index in assessing severity of acute pancreatitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:386-392.[PubMed] [DOI]
48.
Brisinda G, Vanella S, Crocco A, Mazzari A, Tomaiuolo P, Santullo F, Grossi U, Crucitti A. Severe acute pancreatitis: advances and insights in assessment of severity and management. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;23:541-551.[PubMed] [DOI]
49.
Piironen A, Kivisaari R, Kemppainen E, Laippala P, Koivisto AM, Poutanen VP, Kivisaari L. Detection of severe acute pancreatitis by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:354-361.[PubMed] [DOI]
50.
Tang W, Zhang XM, Xiao B, Zeng NL, Pan HS, Feng ZS, Xu XX. Magnetic resonance imaging versus Acute Physiology And Chronic Healthy Evaluation II score in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80:637-642.[PubMed] [DOI]
51.
Werner J, Hartwig W, Uhl W, Müller C, Büchler MW. Useful markers for predicting severity and monitoring progression of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2003;3:115-127.[PubMed] [DOI]
52.
Kaya E, Dervisoglu A, Polat C. Evaluation of diagnostic findings and scoring systems in outcome prediction in acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:3090-3094.[PubMed]
53.
Schütte K, Malfertheiner P. Markers for predicting severity and progression of acute pancreatitis. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;22:75-90.[PubMed] [DOI]
54.
Cardoso FS, Ricardo LB, Oliveira AM, Canena JM, Horta DV, Papoila AL, Deus JR. C-reactive protein prognostic accuracy in acute pancreatitis: timing of measurement and cutoff points. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25:784-789.[PubMed]
55.
Toouli J, Brooke-Smith M, Bassi C, Carr-Locke D, Telford J, Freeny P, Imrie C, Tandon R. Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;17 Suppl:S15-S39.[PubMed] [DOI]
56.
Working Party of the British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland; Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland; Association of Upper GI Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland.UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Gut. 2005;54 Suppl 3:iii1-iii9.[PubMed]
57.
Gardner TB, Vege SS, Chari ST, Pearson RK, Clain JE, Topazian MD, Levy MJ, Petersen BT. The effect of age on hospital outcomes in severe acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2008;8:265-270.[PubMed] [DOI]
58.
Yasuda T, Ueda T, Takeyama Y, Shinzeki M, Sawa H, Nakajima T, Matsumoto I, Fujita T, Sakai T, Ajiki T. Treatment strategy against infection: clinical outcome of continuous regional arterial infusion, enteral nutrition, and surgery in severe acute pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2007;42:681-689.[PubMed] [DOI]
59.
Ino Y, Arita Y, Akashi T, Kimura T, Igarashi H, Oono T, Furukawa M, Kawabe K, Ogoshi K, Ouchi J. Continuous regional arterial infusion therapy with gabexate mesilate for severe acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:6382-6387.[PubMed] [DOI]
60.
Piaścik M, Rydzewska G, Milewski J, Olszewski S, Furmanek M, Walecki J, Gabryelewicz A. The results of severe acute pancreatitis treatment with continuous regional arterial infusion of protease inhibitor and antibiotic: a randomized controlled study. Pancreas. 2010;39:863-867.[PubMed] [DOI]
61.
McMenamin DA, Gates LK. A retrospective analysis of the effect of contrast-enhanced CT on the outcome of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91:1384-1387.[PubMed]
62.
Carmona-Sánchez R, Uscanga L, Bezaury-Rivas P, Robles-Díaz G, Suazo-Barahona J, Vargas-Vorácková F. Potential harmful effect of iodinated intravenous contrast medium on the clinical course of mild acute pancreatitis. Arch Surg. 2000;135:1280-1284.[PubMed] [DOI]
63.
Fleszler F, Friedenberg F, Krevsky B, Friedel D, Braitman LE. Abdominal computed tomography prolongs length of stay and is frequently unnecessary in the evaluation of acute pancreatitis. Am J Med Sci. 2003;325:251-255.[PubMed] [DOI]
64.
Hwang TL, Chang KY, Ho YP. Contrast-enhanced dynamic computed tomography does not aggravate the clinical severity of patients with severe acute pancreatitis: reevaluation of the effect of intravenous contrast medium on the severity of acute pancreatitis. Arch Surg. 2000;135:287-290.[PubMed] [DOI]
65.
Uhl W, Roggo A, Kirschstein T, Anghelacopoulos SE, Gloor B, Müller CA, Malfertheiner P, Büchler MW. Influence of contrast-enhanced computed tomography on course and outcome in patients with acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2002;24:191-197.[PubMed] [DOI]