Volume: 10 Issue: 3
Year: 2022, Page: 9-13, Doi: https://doi.org/10.47799/pimr.1003.03
Received: May 5, 2022 Accepted: Oct. 10, 2022 Published: Oct. 10, 2022
Background: Untreated acute pancreatitis can have high morbidity and mortality. It is a serious gastrointestinal emergency. Its incidence is approximately 51.0 % and it can cause both local and systemic problems. The diagnosis usually involves laboratory tests like amylase and lipase as well as an ultrasound exam. The ideal imaging test is a contrast-enhanced CT scan. This study used scoring systems based on laboratory and radiological investigations to determine the clinical progression and outcome.
Methods : Patients who were diagnosed with acute pancreatitis and in whom computed tomography was done were included. From the imaging findings, the category and subcategory of acute pancreatitis and types of fluid collections were described in these patients using the revised Atlanta classification. BISAP score was calculated in all these patients. The clinical outcome assessed in these patients is the duration of stay in the hospital, mortality, presence of persistent organ failure, the occurrence of infection and need for intervention. Finally, the correlation between the Revised Atlanta classification and BISAP score was analyzed and compared with clinical outcomes.
Results: The analysis of the correlation between Revised Atlanta classification severity grade and BISAP score, among the n=57 patients with mild acute pancreatitis n=56, had BISAP score less than 3 and only one had BISAP score greater or equal to three. Among the n=25 patients graded as moderately severe acute pancreatitis, n=20 cases had a BISAP score of less than 3 and n=5 had BISAP score greater than or equal to three. Among the n=08 patients graded as severe acute pancreatitis, n=3 had a BISAP score of less than 3 and n=5 had BISAP score greater than or equal to three.
Conclusion: Standardizing nomenclature and facilitating proper documentation of a variety of imaging abnormalities in acute pancreatitis is made possible by incorporating the new Atlanta categorization system into daily practice. We can triage, predict, and treat patients with acute pancreatitis with greater precision by integrating the new Atlanta classification with BISAP clinical grading, significantly improving medical care.
Keywords: Acute Pancreatitis, Computerized Tomography (CT), BISAP score, Revised Atlanta scoring system
Whitcomb, D C . 1920. Clinical practice in Acute pancreatitis. N England Journal of Medicine 354:2142–50.
Banks, P A, Bollen, Thomas, Dervenis, Christos, Gooszen, Hein G, Johnson, Colin D & Sarr, Michael G . 2013. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62(1):102–111.
Lankisch, Paul Georg, Apte, Minoti & banks, Peter . 2015. Acute pancreatitis. Lancet 386(9988):85–96.
Forsmark, C E & Baillie, J . 2007. AGA Institute technical review on acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 132:2022–2066.
Banks, P A, Bollen, T L, Dervenis, C, Gooszen, H G, Johnson, C D, Sarr, M G, Tsiotos, G G & Vege, S S . 2013. Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working Group. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62(1):102–113.
Balthazar, E J, Freeny, P C & Van Sonnenberg, E . 1994. Imaging and intervention in acute pancreatitis. Radiology 193:297–306.
Kivisaari, L, Somer, K & Standertskjold-Nordenstam, C G . 1983. Early detection of acute fulminant pancreatitis, by contrast, enhanced computed tomography. Scand J Gastroenterol 18:39–41.
Beger, H G, Maier, W & Block, S . 1986. How do imaging methods influence the surgical strategy in acute pancreatitis. In: Malfertheiner P & Ditschuneit H , eds. Diagnostic Procedures in Pancreatic Disease. Springer-Verlag
Cofaru, Florina-Alexandra, Nica, Silvia & FierbinȚeanu-Braticevici, Carmen . 2022. Assessment of severity of acute pancreatitis over time. Rom J Intern Med 58(2):47–54.
Balthazar, E J, Robinson, D L & Megibow, A J . 1990. Acute pancreatitis: the value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 171:331–367.
Bollen, T L, Singh, V K & Maurer, R . 2011. Comparative evaluation of the modified CT severity index in assessing severity ofacute pancreatitis. Am J Roentgenol 197:386–92.
Anubhav Harshit Kumar, Mahavir & Singh Griwan, . 2012. A comparison of APACHE II, BISAP, Ranson's score, and modified CTSI in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis based on the. Atlanta Classification Gastroenterology Report 6(2):127–131.
Gonapati, S, Ramana, K V & Sachar, S . 2019. Role of CECT in acute pancreatitis and correlation of MCTSI with clinical outcome. Int J Contemp Med Surg Radiol 4:11–15.
Guda, N M, Trikudanathan, G & Freeman, M L . 2018. Idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis. Lancet GastroenterolHepatol 3:720–748.
Lankisch, P G, Apte, M & Banks, P A . 2015. Acute pancreatitis. Lancet 386:85–96.
Robert, J H, Frossard, J L & Mermillod, B . 2002. Early prediction of acute pancreatitis: prospective study comparing computed tomography scans, Ranson, Glasgow, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, and various serum markers. World J Surg 26:612.
Yadav, D, Agarwal, N & Pitchumoni, C S . 2002. A critical evaluation of laboratory tests in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1309.
Zhang, J, Shahbaz, M, Fang, R, Liang, B, Gao, C, Gao, H, Ijaz, M, Peng, C, Wang, B, Niu, Z & Niu, J . 2014. Comparison of the BISAP scores for predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis in Chinese patients according to the latest Atlanta classification. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 21(9):689–94.
Sagi S, Bharati K. Assessment of Severity of Pancreatitis by Computerized Tomography Using Revised Atlanta Classification and Comparison with BISAP Clinical Scoring System. Perspectives in Medical Research. 2022;10(3):9-13 DOI: 10.47799/pimr.1003.03