The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic value of established scoring systems with early warning scores in a large cohort of patients with acute pancreatitis.
Methods
In patients presenting with acute pancreatitis, age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, Modified Glasgow Score, Ranson criteria, APACHE II scores and early warning score (EWS) were recorded for the first 72 h following admission. These variables were compared between survivors and non-survivors, between patients with mild/moderate and severe pancreatitis (based on the 2012 Atlanta Classification) and between patients with a favourable or adverse outcome.
Results
A total of 629 patients were identified. EWS was the best predictor of adverse outcome amongst all of the assessed variables (area under curve (AUC) values 0.81, 0.84 and 0.83 for days 1, 2 and 3, respectively) and was the most accurate predictor of mortality on both days 2 and 3 (AUC values of 0.88 and 0.89, respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that an EWS ≥2 was independently associated with severity of pancreatitis, adverse outcome and mortality.
Conclusion
This study confirms the usefulness of EWS in predicting the outcome of acute pancreatitis. It should become the mainstay of risk stratification in patients with acute pancreatitis.
Introduction
Acute pancreatitis has an associated mortality of approximately 6 % [1], and patients with persistent organ failure have a reported mortality of 36–50 % [1‐3]. Fortunately, an increase in incidence has not been mirrored by an increase in mortality [4]. The revised Atlanta Classification System defines severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) as comprising of organ dysfunction lasting more than 48 h [5], which is associated with an increase in mortality [2, 3]. UK guidelines advocate early severity stratification, aggressive fluid resuscitation and prompt treatment of the underlying aetiology [6]. High dependency unit monitoring in all patients with SAP is recommended.
A multitude of severity scores for acute pancreatitis are currently in use. Early and accurate prediction of prognosis enables patients with or at risk of developing SAP to be identified and closely supported with intensive monitoring. Current scoring systems assess a combination of physiological, biochemical and/or imaging features. The suggested prognostic factors in UK guidelines include the Modified Glasgow Criteria (MGC) and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score [6]. Other validated scoring systems include the Ranson criteria and the Balthazar score.
Anzeige
Previous data have suggested that the early warning score (EWS) may be useful in screening patients to predict the severity of an episode of acute pancreatitis and for monitoring the response to treatment [7‐9]. EWS is a bedside score that measures the following six values: heart rate, respiratory rate, conscious state, temperature, urine output and blood pressure (Table 1), and it is simple to calculate and hence readily available. It is purely clinical and required the addition of no biochemical or radiological tests. Regional variations in the scoring proforma exist within the UK, but the scores are generally homogenous. EWS reflects the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), which is the main cause of organ dysfunction and mortality in many conditions including acute pancreatitis. The use of the EWS has been recognised in other critical surgical [10, 11] and medical conditions [12]. As well as its use in predicting prognosis, it facilitates a logical policy to guide the escalation of care (a high score will demand senior trainee or consultant review), meaning that it is invaluable in the clinical setting.
Table 1
University Hospitals of Leicester early warning score
Variable
Scorea
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Heart rate
<40
40–50
51–100
101–110
111–129
>130
Respiratory rate
≤8
9–14
15–20
21–29
≥30
Temperature
<35.0
35.1–36.0
36.1–37.9
38.0–38.4
≥38.5
CNS
Alert
Voice
Pain
Unconscious
Urine (catheter)
Nil
<0.5 ml/kg for >2 h
<0.5 ml/kg for >1 h
>3 ml/kg for >2 h
Urine (no catheter)
PU in 12 h, no
PU in 12 h, yes
BP
Patient’s normal systolic (mmHg)
Current systolic (mmHg)
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
200
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
190
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
170
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
160
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
150
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
140
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
130
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
120
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
110
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
90
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
80
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
70
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
0
60
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
40
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
CNS central nervous system, PU passed urine, BP blood pressure
aOverall score is the sum of each individual variable score
Various isolated biochemical values have also been identified as potential markers of the severity of an episode of pancreatitis and are included in a range of scoring systems. Using a cutoff value of 150 mg/l, C-reactive protein (CRP) has been shown to be useful at 48 h following admission [6]. Leucocyte count is often incorporated within scoring systems such as Ranson criteria, MGC and APACHE II. The use of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been described in other critical and cardiac illnesses [13] and in some studies has recently been found to be useful in determining prognosis in patients with acute pancreatitis [14]. Azab et al. have studied the NLR in acute pancreatitis and demonstrated its usefulness in predicting rates of admission to intensive therapy unit (ITU) and prolonged lengths of stay [15].
This study re-examines the efficacy of EWS in determining the outcome of acute pancreatitis in the largest patient cohort reported to date. EWS was compared to other prognostic scores (including APACHE II, MGC and Ranson criteria) as well as haematological variables such as CRP, NLR and leucocyte count.
Materials and methods
A retrospective observational study was undertaken. Patients admitted with a coding diagnosis of acute pancreatitis from 2007 to 2011 were identified from computerised records. Diagnostic criteria for acute pancreatitis were a serum amylase three times the upper limit of normal in patients with upper abdominal pain or radiological evidence of acute pancreatic inflammation; patients not meeting this criteria were excluded (Fig. 1). Patient age, sex, aetiology of pancreatitis, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, MGC and Ranson criteria were recorded. Where applicable, the Balthazar computed tomography (CT) score was noted from the first CT scan available after index admission. APACHE II scores and EWS were collected during the first 3 days of admission to hospital. The worst values within a 24-h period were recorded for each physiological scoring system. The number of patients developing SIRS was also noted on days 1 to 3. The presence of SIRS was defined as any two of the following: temperature greater than 38 °C or less than 36 °C, heart rate greater than 90 beats per minute, respiratory rate greater than 20/min, PCO2 of less than 32 mm Hg and white blood cell counts greater than 12,000 or less than 4000 cells/mm3. The following biochemical and haematological parameters were also noted on days 1, 2 and 3: CRP, leucocyte count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count and NLR.
Fig. 1
Patient selection
×
Anzeige
These variables were compared between survivors and non-survivors, between patients with acute mild/moderate or severe pancreatitis and between patients with a favourable or adverse outcome. A favourable outcome was defined as survival of the episode of pancreatitis without high dependency unit (HDU) or ITU admission or operative intervention. An adverse outcome was defined as non-survival, admission to HDU or the need for operative intervention, excluding cholecystectomy.
Statistical method
The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used to determine if the continuous variables were parametric or non-parametric. Parametric data was compared using the two-tailed t test and non-parametric data with the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical data was compared using the Pearson’s chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate. Subsequently, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was applied as a measure of the overall accuracy of individual markers. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed to identify variables independently associated with severity, adverse outcome and survival. All variables with a p value <0.10 on univariable analysis were taken forward into multivariable analysis, which was performed using a stepwise backward model. Continuous variables were analysed following paramedian split in these analyses. Analyses were conducted using SPSS version 20.0, and all p values were two sided. Significance was set at a p value of <0.05.
Results
A total of 629 patients were identified and fulfilled the admission criteria for the study. Three hundred and nine (49.1 %) were male and 320 (50.9 %) were female. There were 55 deaths, including 4 operative cases, resulting in a mortality rate of 8.7 %. Fourteen surviving patients required surgical intervention. HDU or ITU admission was required in 62 cases, with 22 of these patients dying, giving a mortality rate following HDU/ITU admission of 35.5 %. In total, 101 patients had an adverse outcome. The cause of pancreatitis was gallstones in 343 cases (54.5 %), with the remaining cases being caused by alcohol (14 %), ERCP (5.2 %), other uncommon causes (4.1 %) and unknown cause (22.1 %). There was insufficient data relating to CT grading of pancreatitis severity for this to be included in the analysis.
Comparison of variables between groups
Patient age and ASA grade were significantly higher in non-survivors, severe episodes and in episodes with an adverse outcome (Table 2). The remaining prognostic scoring systems evaluated all demonstrated significantly higher values for all three outcomes (p < 0.001).
Table 2
Clinicopathological and laboratory data in patients with acute pancreatitis compared according to severity, adverse outcome and mortality
Severity
Adverse outcome
Mortality
Mild/moderate
Severe
p value
Non-adverse
Adverse
p value
Survivors
Non-survivors
p value
Age
58 (15–102)
67 (20–98)
<0.001
59 (15–102)
70 (24–93)
<0.001
56.96 (±20.19)
74.65 (±13.52)
<0.001
Age
≥65
287/191
66/85
<0.001
315/213
38/63
<0.001
342/232
11/44
<0.001
Sex
Male
251
58
0.003
260
49
0.893
292
28
0.996
Female
227
93
0.003
268
52
0.893
282
27
0.996
Aetiology
Gallstones
269
74
0.118
301
42
0.004
321
22
0.023
EtOH
67
21
0.973
77
11
0.327
83
5
0.273
ERCP
26
7
0.699
26
7
0.407
29
4
0.480
Other
21
5
0.560
24
2
0.409
115
24
<0.001
Unknown
95
44
0.017
100
39
<0.001
26
0
0.155
ASA grade
6 (0–18)
12 (0–31)
<0.001
2 (1–4)
3 (1–5)
<0.001
2 (1–4)
3 (1–5)
<0.001
5 (0–18)
9 (0–40)
<0.001
428/100
100/56
<0.001
457/117
16/39
<0.001
4 (0–22)
8 (0–40)
<0.001
519/9
94/7
0.007
563/11
50/5
0.009
MCG
1 (0–6)
2 (0–7)
<0.001
1 (0–5)
3 (0–7)
<0.001
1 (0–7)
3 (0–6)
<0.001
Ranson
1 (0–5)
2 (0–6)
<0.001
1 (0–5)
2 (0–6)
<0.001
1 (0–6)
3 (0–6)
<0.001
Apache II
Day 1
6 (0–18)
12 (0–31)
<0.001
7 (0–20)
12 (0–31)
<0.001
7 (0–30)
13.5 (3–31)
<0.001
Day 2
5 (0–18)
9 (0–40)
<0.001
5 (0–22)
10 (0–40)
<0.001
5 (0–30)
12 (3–40)
<0.001
Day 3
4 (0–22)
8 (0–40)
<0.001
5 (0–22)
9 (0–40)
<0.001
5 (0–34)
10 (1–40)
<0.001
SIRS
Day 1
102
63
<0.001
112
53
<0.001
135
30
<0.001
Day 2
82
57
<0.001
91
48
<0.001
113
26
<0.001
Day 3
72
46
<0.001
75
43
<0.001
95
23
<0.001
EWS
Day 1
1 (0–9)
2 (0–12)
<0.001
1 (0–9)
4 (0–12)
<0.001
1 (0–12)
4 (1–11)
<0.001
Day 2
1 (0–9)
4 (0–12)
<0.001
1 (0–8)
5 (0–12)
<0.001
1 (0–12)
5 (1–12)
<0.001
Day 3
1 (0–10)
2.5 (0–10)
<0.001
1 (0–10)
4 (0–10)
<0.001
1 (0–10)
5 (0–10)
<0.001
CRP
Day 1
12 (3–675)
32 (3–352)
<0.001
13 (3–675)
74.5 (3–382)
<0.001
14 (3–675)
39 (3–357)
0.002
Day 2
89 (3–343)
154.5 (11–411)
0.004
91.5 (3–411)
188 (3–393)
0.001
96 (3–411)
168.5 (37–352)
0.028
Day 3
130 (3–410)
279.5 (3–433)
<0.001
132 (3–410)
274.5 (3–433)
0.019
143.5 (3–433)
282.5 (196–290)
0.050
Leucocyte count
Day 1
12.5 (2.6–34.9)
15.0 (3.5–29.5)
<0.001
12.7 (2.6–34.9)
15.5 (3.5–29.5)
<0.001
12.8 (2.6–34.9)
14.4 (3.5–25.5)
0.016
Day 2
11.1 (3.2–35.9)
12.0 (0.7–29.8)
0.117
11.25 (2.10–35.9)
11.85 (0.7–30.3)
0.256
11.3 (2.1–35.9)
12.4 (0.7–30.3)
0.203
Day 3
10.2 (3.3–27.9)
10.85 (2.60–41.7)
0.308
10.2 (2.6–41.7)
10.9 (3.8–25.4)
0.184
10.2 (2.6–41.7)
12.1 (3.8–25.4)
0.208
Neutrophil count
Day 1
10.5 (2.12–33.47)
12.60 (0.42–28.32)
0.002
10.66 (0.42–33.47)
12.83 (3.16–28.32)
<0.001
10.8 (0.42–33.47)
12.76 (3.16–23.57)
0.006
Day 2
9.00 (0.96–33.98)
9.89 (0.36–24.90)
0.096
9.10 (0.36–33.98)
10.05 (0.47–28.53)
0.073
9.1 (0.36–33.98)
10.92 (0.47–28.53)
0.038
Day 3
7.70 (2.10–25.16)
9.21 (0.57–22.59)
0.134
7.56 (0.57–25.16)
9.71 (1.01–22.59)
0.054
7.73 (0.57–25.16)
9.83 (1.01–22.59)
0.129
Lymphocyte count
Day 1
1.16 (0.20–4.71)
1.12 (0.13–21.70)
0.878
1.20 (0.13–21.70)
0.99 (0.24–3.18)
0.188
1.20 (0.13–21.70)
0.92 (0.24–3.18)
0.017
Day 2
1.21 (0.33–4.43)
0.92 (0.15–11.17)
<0.001
1.21 (0.15–11.17)
0.80 (0.17–3.99)
<0.001
1.19 (0.15–11.17)
0.70 (0.17–3.99)
<0.001
Day 3
1.28 (0.35–4.98)
0.94 (0.20–6.70)
<0.001
1.27 (0.26–4.07)
0.82 (0.20–6.70)
<0.001
1.23 (0.26–4.07)
0.78 (0.20–6.70)
<0.001
NLR
Day 1
9.70 (0.95–78.50)
10.48 (0.02–47.31)
0.139
9.47 (0.02–78.50)
11.39 (2.16–45.79)
0.004
9.6 (0.02–78.5)
12.3 (2.2–45.8)
0.001
Day 2
7.84 (0.48–58.22)
11.30 (0.03–74.00)
<0.001
7.86 (0.03–74.00)
12.17 (1.83–58.33)
<0.001
8.0 (0.3–74.0)
14.2 (1.8–58.3)
<0.001
Day 3
6.22 (0.69–40.68)
10.20 (0.14–31.15)
<0.001
6.30 (0.14–40.68)
11.66 (1.00–30.00)
<0.001
6.7 (0.14–40.7)
13.5 (1.0–28.7)
<0.001
All values are median values with range in parentheses unless otherwise indicated
EtOH alcohol, ERCP endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, ASA American Society of Anaesthesiologists, MGC Modified Glasgow Criteria, Ranson Ranson criteria, APACHE II Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, SIRS systemic inflammatory response syndrome, EWS early warning score, CRP C-reactive protein, NLR neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio
Total leucocyte count only demonstrated a significant association with mortality, severity and adverse outcome on day 1 with no significant association between day 2 or 3 leucocyte count and any outcome. When NLR was compared between groups, significantly higher NLR was found in severe cases on days 2 and 3 and in non-survivors and in patients with an adverse outcome on all 3 days. Regarding its components, neutrophil count was significantly higher in severe cases and patients with adverse outcome on day 1 only and in non-survivors on days 1 and 2. By contrast, lymphocyte count was significantly lower in all three groups on days 2 and 3 and was also significantly lower in non-survivors on day 1. Day 3 neutrophil count was not significantly different between any of the groups.
ROC analysis
Comparison of area under curve (AUC) data from the ROC analysis for clinical prognostic scoring systems revealed that EWS, although highly statistically significant on all 3 days (p < 0.001), was inferior in predicting severity of acute pancreatitis when compared to the MGC and APACHE II on day 1 (AUC values 0.71 vs. 0.78 and 0.76, respectively; Table 3). Its predictive value on days 2 and 3 (AUC values 0.75 and 0.70) was marginally lower than those of APACHE II. EWS demonstrated the most accurate predictive ability for adverse outcome and was also the best predictor of adverse outcome amongst all of the clinical and laboratory variables assessed (AUC values 0.81, 0.84 and 0.83 for days 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Although EWS was inferior in predictive value to APACHE II on day 1 (AUC values 0.83 vs. 0.84, respectively), it most accurately predicted mortality on both day 2 and day 3 amongst all variables assessed (AUC values 0.88 and 0.89, respectively).
Table 3
The AUC predictive value of clinical and laboratory variables in predicting severity, outcome and mortality associated with acute pancreatitis
Severity
Adverse outcome
Mortality
AUC
SE
95 % CI
p value
AUC
SE
95 % CI
p value
AUC
SE
95 % CI
p value
Age
0.62
0.03
0.57–0.67
<0.001
0.64
0.03
0.58–0.70
<0.001
0.76
0.03
0.70–0.82
<0.001
ASA grade
0.64
0.03
0.59–0.69
<0.001
0.71
0.03
0.66–0.77
<0.001
0.79
0.03
0.74–0.851
<0.001
Balthazar
0.58
0.04
0.50–0.65
0.059
0.60
0.04
0.52–0.69
0.023
0.61
0.06
0.49–0.72
0.071
MGC
0.78
0.02
0.73–0.82
<0.001
0.80
0.03
0.74–0.85
<0.001
0.79
0.04
0.72–0.86
<0.001
Ranson
0.73
0.03
0.68–0.78
<0.001
0.69
0.03
0.62–0.75
<0.001
0.75
0.04
0.67–0.83
<0.001
APACHE II
Day 1
0.76
0.02
0.72–0.81
<0.001
0.77
0.03
0.72–0.82
<0.001
0.84
0.03
0.79–0.89
<0.001
Day 2
0.75
0.03
0.71–0.80
<0.001
0.81
0.02
0.76–0.86
<0.001
0.85
0.03
0.80–0.90
<0.001
Day 3
0.73
0.03
0.68–0.78
<0.001
0.79
0.03
0.74–0.84
<0.001
0.80
0.03
0.74–0.86
<0.001
SIRS
Day 1
0.63
0.03
0.57–0.68
<0.001
0.69
0.03
0.63–0.75
<0.001
0.71
0.04
0.62–0.79
<0.001
Day 2
0.65
0.03
0.60–0.71
<0.001
0.72
0.03
0.66–0.79
<0.001
0.73
0.05
0.64–0.81
<0.001
Day 3
0.62
0.03
0.56–0.68
<0.001
0.71
0.04
0.64–0.78
<0.001
0.71
0.05
0.61–0.80
<0.001
EWS
Day 1
0.71
0.03
0.66–0.77
<0.001
0.81
0.03
0.75–0.86
<0.001
0.83
0.03
0.77–0.88
<0.001
Day 2
0.75
0.03
0.70–0.81
<0.001
0.84
0.03
0.78–0.90
<0.001
0.88
0.03
0.83–0.93
<0.001
Day 3
0.70
0.03
0.64–0.76
<0.001
0.83
0.04
0.76–0.90
<0.001
0.89
0.03
0.83–0.96
<0.001
CRP
Day 1
0.64
0.03
0.57–0.70
<0.001
0.70
0.04
0.62–0.79
<0.001
0.66
0.05
0.56–0.75
0.002
Day 2
0.66
0.05
0.56–0.76
0.004
0.70
0.06
0.58–0.82
0.001
0.68
0.07
0.55–0.81
0.028
Day 3
0.71
0.05
0.61–0.81
<0.001
0.67
0.06
0.55–0.79
0.019
0.74
0.05
0.65–0.83
0.050
Leucocyte count
Day 1
0.61
0.03
0.56–0.67
<0.001
0.63
0.03
0.56–0.69
<0.001
0.60
0.04
0.52–0.69
0.016
Day 2
0.55
0.03
0.49–0.62
0.117
0.54
0.04
0.47–0.61
0.256
0.56
0.05
0.46–0.66
0.203
Day 3
0.54
0.04
0.47–0.60
0.308
0.55
0.04
0.48–0.63
0.184
0.57
0.05
0.47–0.66
0.208
Neutrophil count
Day 1
0.59
0.03
0.53–0.64
0.002
0.62
0.03
0.56–0.69
<0.001
0.62
0.04
0.54–0.70
0.006
Day 2
0.56
0.03
0.49–0.62
0.096
0.57
0.04
0.49–0.64
0.073
0.60
0.05
0.51–0.69
0.038
Day 3
0.55
0.04
0.48–0.62
0.134
0.58
0.04
0.51–0.65
0.054
0.58
0.05
0.49–0.67
0.129
Lymphocyte count
Day 1
0.50
0.03
0.45–0.56
0.878
0.54
0.03
0.48–0.61
0.188
0.60
0.04
0.52–0.68
0.017
Day 2
0.67
0.03
0.61–0.74
<0.001
0.73
0.03
0.66–0.79
<0.001
0.79
0.04
0.71–0.86
<0.001
Day 3
0.67
0.03
0.60–0.74
<0.001
0.72
0.04
0.64–0.79
<0.001
0.73
0.05
0.63–0.83
<0.001
NLR
Day 1
0.54
0.03
0.49–0.60
0.139
0.60
0.03
0.53–0.66
0.004
0.64
0.04
0.56–0.71
0.001
Day 2
0.66
0.03
0.60–0.71
<0.001
0.69
0.03
0.62–0.76
<0.001
0.75
0.04
0.67–0.82
<0.001
Day 3
0.65
0.03
0.58–0.71
<0.001
0.69
0.04
0.62–0.77
<0.001
0.70
0.05
0.61–0.79
<0.001
ASA American Society of Anaesthesiologists, Balthazar Balthazar CT severity index, MGC Modified Glasgow Criteria, Ranson Ranson criteria, APACHE II Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, SIRS systemic inflammatory response syndrome, EWS early warning score, CRP C-reactive protein, NLR neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, AUC area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, SE standard error, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval
Binary logistic regression analysis
Univariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that all of the prognostic clinicopathological scoring systems assessed (ASA, MGC, APACHE II, SIRS, EWS), measured on all 3 days, showed highly significant associations with severity of pancreatitis, adverse outcome and mortality (all p < 0.001; Table 4). In addition, patient age over 60 demonstrated a highly significant association with all three outcomes (all p < 0.001).
Table 4
Univariable binary logistic regression for factors associated with severity, adverse outcome and mortality
Cutoff
Severity
Adverse outcome
Mortality
HR
95 % CI
p value
HR
95 % CI
p value
HR
95 % CI
p value
Age
≤60/>60
2.11
1.44–3.20
<0.001
2.75
1.72–4.39
<0.001
8.51
3.59–20.19
<0.001
Sex
M/F
0.56
0.39–0.82
0.003
0.97
0.63–1.49
0.893
1.00
0.57–1.74
0.996
ASA
1–2/3–4
1.65
1.36–2.01
<0.001
2.31
1.84–2.89
<0.001
3.09
2.27–4.20
<0.001
MGC
0–1/≥2
6.78
4.44–10.35
<0.001
8.86
5.11–15.37
<0.001
7.81
3.75–16.27
<0.001
Ranson
0–1/≥2
4.25
2.84–6.37
<0.001
3.16
1.99–5.03
<0.001
4.28
2.23–8.22
<0.001
Apache II
Day 1
0–6/≥7
6.65
4.05–10.93
<0.001
7.43
3.87–14.26
<0.001
21.89
5.27–90.94
<0.001
Day 2
0–4/≥5
4.25
2.84–6.37
<0.001
3.16
1.99–5.03
<0.001
4.283
2.23–8.22
<0.001
Day 3
0–4/≥5
3.33
2.15–5.15
<0.001
8.04
4.07–15.86
<0.001
9.99
3.54–28.16
<0.001
SIRS
Day 1
Y/N
3.14
2.09–4.73
<0.001
5.21
3.22–8.41
<0.001
5.82
3.04–11.15
<0.001
Day 2
4.07
2.62–6.33
<0.001
7.26
4.28–12.34
<0.001
7.13
3.49–14.59
<0.001
Day 3
3.28
2.07–5.19
<0.001
6.94
4.07–11.82
<0.001
6.33
3.33–12.77
<0.001
EWS
Day 1
0–1/≥2
3.63
2.32–5.68
<0.001
7.32
4.31–12.42
<0.001
16.82
5.14–55.01
<0.001
Day 2
4.99
3.06–8.13
<0.001
9.956
4.65–21.33
<0.001
21.96
5.22–92.31
<0.001
Day 3
3.56
2.22–5.69
<0.001
11.56
5.17–26.16
<0.001
39.36
5.29–292.61
<0.001
CRP
–
25
2.35
1.46–3.79
<0.001
3.32
1.77–6.22
<0.001
2.44
1.16–5.12
0.019
Leucocyte count
Day 1
Median (12.9)
2.24
1.52–3.31
<0.001
2.20
1.38–3.51
0.001
1.64
0.91–2.94
0.100
Day 2
Median (11.4)
1.36
0.87–2.11
0.177
1.24
0.76–2.03
0.394
1.50
0.78–2.89
0.225
Day 3
Median (10.4)
1.53
0.95–2.44
0.079
1.53
0.90–2.62
0.119
2.29
1.08–4.86
0.030
Neutrophil count
Day 1
Median (10.9)
1.95
1.32–2.88
0.001
2.20
1.36–3.55
0.001
1.77
0.98–3.19
0.060
Day 2
Median (9.3)
1.53
0.97–2.40
0.068
1.37
0.81–2.29
0.239
1.65
0.85–3.19
0.140
Day 3
Median (8.3)
1.54
0.96–2.48
0.073
2.06
1.17–3.63
0.013
2.62
1.21–5.66
0.014
Lymphocyte count
Day 1
Median (1.2)
0.87
0.61–1.30
0.534
0.60
0.38–0.96
0.033
0.40
0.22–0.75
0.004
Day 2
Median (1.1)
0.35
0.21–0.56
<0.001
0.23
0.13–0.42
<0.001
0.15
0.06–0.36
<0.001
Day 3
Median (1.2)
0.30
0.18–0.51
<0.001
0.21
0.11–0.41
<0.001
0.28
0.12–0.64
0.003
NLR
Day 1
Median (9.9)
1.37
0.94–2.01
0.105
2.47
1.52–4.02
<0.001
4.00
2.03–8.03
<0.001
Day 2
Median (8.6)
2.73
1.70–4.39
<0.001
3.99
2.21–7.18
<0.001
5.64
2.44–13.07
<0.001
Day 3
Median (7.2)
2.61
1.59–4.28
<0.001
3.91
2.09–7.31
<0.001
4.38
1.85–10.34
0.001
ASA American Society of Anaesthesiologists, MGC Modified Glasgow Criteria, Ranson Ranson criteria, APACHE II Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, SIRS systemic inflammatory response syndrome, EWS early warning score, CRP C-reactive protein, NLR neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, HR hazard ratio, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval
Amongst the haematological variables, high leucocyte and neutrophil counts on day 1 were significantly associated with severity and adverse outcome. A high leucocyte count on day 3 was significantly associated with mortality, whilst a high neutrophil count on day 3 was associated with an adverse outcome and mortality. Highly significant associations were noted between both lymphocyte count and NLR and all three outcomes on both day 2 (all p < 0.001) and day 3 (all p ≤ 0.003).
Anzeige
Multivariable analysis revealed that EWS and low lymphocyte count were the dominant factors independently associated with all three outcomes. EWS ≥2 (measured on all 3 days) was independently associated with severity of pancreatitis (Table 5). In addition, low day 2 and day 3 lymphocyte counts were independently associated with disease severity. EWS ≥2 also demonstrated an independent association with adverse outcome on all 3 days, whilst low day 2 and day 3 lymphocyte counts were also independently associated with severity. In relation to mortality, multivariable analysis demonstrated that EWS ≥2 was independently associated with death following pancreatitis when measured on day 1, day 2 or day 3. A low day 2 lymphocyte count was also independently associated with mortality.
Table 5
Multivariable binary logistic regression analyses for factors independently associated with severity, adverse outcome and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis
Day
Variable
Group
Severity
Adverse outcome
Mortality
HR
95 % CI
p value
HR
95 % CI
p value
HR
95 % CI
p value
Day 1
ASA
I and II vs. III and IV
–
–
–
1.90
1.39–2.60
<0.001
3.55
2.28–5.55
<0.001
EWS
0–1 vs. ≥2
5.14
2.47–10.69
<0.001
4.03
2.12–7.67
<0.001
5.41
2.23–13.14
<0.001
Lymphocyte count
Above/below median
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.34
0.14–0.82
0.017
Day 2
Age
<60 vs. ≥60
–
–
–
–
–
–
5.85
1.19–28.7
0.029
EWS
0–1 vs. ≥2
2.34
1.03–5.31
0.043
11.44
4.56–28.69
<0.001
7.76
1.59–37.98
0.011
Lymphocyte count
Above/below median
0.46
0.22–0.95
0.036
0.37
0.16–0.86
0.021
0.16
0.04–0.77
0.023
Day 3
EWS
0–1 vs. ≥2
2.97
1.54–5.72
0.001
46.83
9.12–240.51
<0.001
42.48
5.36–337.25
<0.001
Lymphocyte count
Above/below median
0.48
0.24–0.96
0.038
0.34
0.12–0.99
0.048
–
–
–
ASA American Society of Anaesthesiologists, EWS early warning score, HR hazard ratio, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval
Of note, when univariable and multivariable analyses were repeated to analyse continuous variables as (i) continuous data and (ii) following division around ROC-determined ‘optimal’ cut points, the same variables were found to have independent significance on multivariable analysis (data not shown).
Discussion
In this study, early warning scores are independently predictive of an adverse outcome and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis. Whilst EWS was marginally inferior to APACHE II in ROC severity prediction, it was superior in predicting adverse outcome and mortality. EWS also compared favourably with other validated clinicopathological scoring systems including the Modified Glasgow Criteria and Ranson criteria. EWS demonstrated independence when predicting severity prognosis, adverse outcome and mortality. The only other scoring systems identified by this study as showing independence was ASA grade (predicting adverse outcome and mortality) on day 1. Although a range of clinical and pathological data make up each scoring system, there are similarities between them. EWS consists of purely physiological data, and it is therefore interesting that it performed better than scoring systems reliant upon laboratory data. EWS also performed better than any single biochemical variable. EWS represents the acute inflammatory response, and this underscores the recognition that the severity of SIRS in acute pancreatitis is directly linked to an increased risk of an unfavourable outcome. The findings of this study confirm previous work, demonstrating that the EWS is a predictor of mortality [7].
The EWS can be calculated at the bedside allowing a prediction of likely outcome to be made almost immediately following a clinical review. Early risk prediction allows for an aggressive management to be commenced at an earlier stage. This study was performed using a centre-specific EWS (Table 1), and a score of 2 or more indicates a high risk of severity, adverse outcome and mortality. Centre-specific early warning scores are limited as data is not reproducible and hence comparable between centres [16]. A national EWS is currently being introduced and has already been validated as a predictor of cardiac arrest, ITU admission and mortality [17]. As this becomes more widespread, a standardised EWS cutoff can be used to predict prognosis and the consistency will make it applicable nationally.
Anzeige
EWS is a dynamic tool, easily repeatable at 15-min intervals that make it particularly valuable for the monitoring of disease progression and can thus be used to guide a clinician in appropriate management. Haemodynamic instability can be easily recognised and will prompt aggressive fluid resuscitation, whilst low oxygen saturation and tachypnoea will demand oxygen therapy and possibly further respiratory support. Acute pancreatitis is a disease that can be associated with a rapid change in clinical condition, and careful monitoring is needed to ensure that patients are managed in a timely fashion.
The APACHE II score has been utilised for the study of a range of conditions in ITU populations. It compares favourably with other scoring systems in the context of acute pancreatitis, although it has been found to be inaccurate when predicting the development of necrotising pancreatitis [18]. In this study, APACHE II correlated most accurately with mortality on ROC analysis, excluding day 3, and was relatively accurate with an AUC on day 2 of 0.85 (CI 0.80–0.90) and outperformed EWS in severity stratification. It did not, however, demonstrate any independent significance for any outcome assessed.
The Modified Glasgow Criteria and Ranson criteria also performed reasonably well with MGC outperforming Ranson criteria in severity, adverse outcome and mortality prediction. MGC demonstrated an AUC value of 0.80 (0.74–0.85) in relation to adverse outcome, which is better than previously demonstrated [7].
The bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP) has been examined by other studies looking at prognostic factors in acute pancreatitis [19, 20]. It combines age, SIRS, blood urea nitrogen, mental state and the presence of a pleural effusion. It has a reported area under the curve of 0.87 (p < 0.001) [19] in predicting severity and an AUC value of 0.86 in predicting death [20]. One study, however, demonstrated that multifactorial prognostic scores did not correlate well with outcome [21]. CRP and interleukin-6 have also been studied, and results suggest that they have a role in the prediction of severity [22]. Results from the present studies have demonstrated that CRP is useful and that its predictive value improved with time (AUC 0.64 to 0.71).
Anzeige
Whilst NLR and neutrophil count were significantly associated with outcome, the effect was not independent of clinicopathological scoring systems. Results did demonstrate that a low lymphocyte count had an independent prognostic significance for all three outcomes. Neutrophilia represents the same inflammatory process that is driving a rise in EWS, and given that the prognostic value of EWS is so strong may explain why neutrophil count and NLR lacked independent prognostic value on multivariable analysis. In contrast, the immunosuppressive effect that results in a falling lymphocyte count is a different process with prognostic significance, which is independent of EWS and other clinicopathological scoring systems [23]. As previously noted by Suppiah et al., further work is needed to assess the significance of lymphopenia in SAP [14].
The retrospective nature of this study meant that data collection was incomplete for some data points. Relatively few numbers of patients underwent CT scanning, and consequently, this yielded too small a cohort to enable meaningful analysis of Balthazar score. As with the majority of studies looking at pancreatitis severity, most data collection commenced following admission to hospital as opposed to the onset of pain. This is a fundamental source of inaccuracy for all studies examining prognostic variables in acute pancreatitis, but it is difficult to see how this can be avoided.
Early severity stratification remains a mainstay of the management of patients with SAP. In this study, lymphocyte count has also demonstrated its usefulness, and further work is needed to see if it is possible to incorporate it into existing scoring systems. This work further highlights the consistent value of EWS in risk prediction and monitoring of patients with SAP, and its use is advocated in all patients presenting with acute pancreatitis.
Authors’ contributions
Michael J Jones, drafting of manuscript and acquisition of data.
Christopher P Neal, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of manuscript.
Wee Sing Ngu, drafting of manuscript and acquisition of data.
Ashley R Dennison, study conception and design and critical revision of manuscript.
Giuseppe Garcea, study conception and design and critical revision of manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.
Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!
Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.
Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.
