Accuracy of Conventional and Novel Scoring Systems in Predicting Severity and Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Backgroud: Recently there are several novel scoring systems to evaluate the severity and outcomes of acute pancreatitis. This study is to compare the effectiveness of novel and traditional scoring systems for predicting severity and outcomes in acute pancreatitis.Methods: Patients between January 2003 and August 2020 were reviewed. Ranson score (RS), Glasgow score (GS), beside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP), pancreatic activity scoring system (PASS), and Chinese simple scoring system (CSSS) were determined within 48h after admission. Multivariate logistic regression was used for severity, mortality, and organ failure prediction. Optimum cutoffs were identified using ROC analysis.Results: A total of 1848 patients were included. AUCs of RS, GS, BISAP, PASS, and CSSS for severity prediction were 0.861, 0.865, 0.829, 0.778, and 0.816, respectively. AUCs for mortality prediction were 0.693, 0.736, 0.789, 0.858, and 0.759. AUCs for ARDS prediction were 0.745, 0.784, 0.834, 0.936, and 0.820. AUCs for ARF prediction were 0.707, 0.734, 0.781, 0.868, and 0.816.Conclusions: RS, and GS predict severity superior to mortality and organ failure while PASS predicts mortality and organ failure better. BISAP and CSSS shared steady capacity in severity and outcomes prediction.

Establishment and Validation of Early Prediction Model for Hypertriglyceridemic Severe Acute Pancreatitis

“…In a meta-analysis, the median sensitivity of BISAP to predict AP mortality was 71.4%, which was lower than the APACHE II and Ranson scores [17]. Wu et al analysed 1848 AP cases and found that the sensitivity of BISAP to predict SAP was only 64.9% (95% CI: 61.2-68.5%) [45]. These studies indicate that BISAP is easy to implement, yet it is disadvantaged by low sensitivity.…”