Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2017; 27(02): 152-160
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_300_16
Gastrointestinal Radiology and Hepatology

Severity assessment of acute pancreatitis using CT severity index and modified CT severity index: Correlation with clinical outcomes and severity grading as per the Revised Atlanta Classification

Biswanath Sahu
Department of Radio-Diagnosis, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
,
Pooja Abbey
Department of Radio-Diagnosis, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
,
Rama Anand
Department of Radio-Diagnosis, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
,
Ashok Kumar
Department of Surgery, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
,
Shaili Tomer
Department of Radio-Diagnosis, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
,
Ekta Malik
Department of Biochemistry, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aims: To assess the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) using computed tomography (CT) severity index (CTSI) and modified CT severity index (MCTSI), to correlate with clinical outcome measures, and to assess concordance with severity grading, as per the revised Atlanta classification (RAC). Materials and Methods: In this prospective study approved by the Institutional Review Board (November 2014 to March 2016), sixty patients with AP (as per the RAC definition) underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) 5–11 days (median 6 days) after symptom onset. Two radiologists, blinded to clinical parameters, independently assessed CTSI and MCTSI (differences were resolved by consensus). Clinical outcome parameters included duration of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), presence of persistent organ failure (OF), evidence of infection, need for intervention, and mortality. Results: We included 60 cases [36 males, age range 19–65 (mean 37) years]. As per the RAC, 26 patients had mild AP, 12 moderately severe, and 22 severe AP. According to CTSI and MCTSI, mild, moderate, and severe cases were 27 (45%), 19 (31.7%), 14 (23.3%) and 24 (40%), 10 (16.7%), 26 (43.3%), respectively. MCTSI was concordant with the RAC grading in 54 (90.0%), CTSI was concordant in 47 (78.3%), and both were concordant in 43 (71.7%) cases. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUROC) was compared by the Hanley and McNeil method. Both CTSI and MCTSI were significantly associated with outcome parameters (P < 0.001), except duration of ICU stay. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of CTSI for detecting moderate/severe disease were 97.1%, 100%, 100%, and 98.3% respectively, and of MCTSI were 100%, 92.3%, 94.4%, and 96.7% respectively. Conclusion: Both CTSI and MCTSI showed significant correlation with clinical outcome parameters, and good concordance with RAC grading of severity. MCTSI showed a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than CTSI in differentiating mild from moderate/severe AP.

Keywords

Acute pancreatitis - contrast-enhanced computed tomography - CT Severity Index - interstitial edematous pancreatitis - modified CT severity index - necrotizing pancreatitis - organ failure - revised Atlanta classification


Publication History

Article published online:
27 July 2021

© 2017. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Bollen TL, Singh VK, Maurer R, Repas K, van Es HW, Banks PA, et al. Comparative evaluation of the modified CT severity index and CT severity index in assessing severity of acute pancreatitis. Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:386-92.
  • 2 Chauhan S, Forsmark CE. The difficulty in predicting outcome in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:443-5.
  • 3 Ranson JHC, Ritkind KM, Roses DF, Fink SD, Eng K, Spencer FC. Prognostic signs and the role of operative management in Acute Pancreatitis. SurgGynecolObstet 1974;139:69-81.
  • 4 Knaus WA, Zimmermann JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Lawrence DE. APACHE- acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: A physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med 1981;9:591-7.
  • 5 Wu BU, Johannes RS, Sun X, Tabak Y, Conwell DL, Banks PA. The early prediction of mortality in acute pancreatitis: Alarge population- based study. Gut 2008;57:1698-703.
  • 6 Blamey SL, Imrie CW, O'Neill J, Gilmour WH, Carter DC. Prognostic factors in acute pancreatitis. Gut 1984;25:1340-6.
  • 7 Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22:707-10.
  • 8 Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JHC. Acute pancreatitis: Value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 1990;174:331-6.
  • 9 Mortele KJ, Wiesner W, Intriere L, Shankar S, Zou KH, Kalantari BN. A modified CT severity index for evaluating acute pancreatitis: Improved correlation with patient outcome. Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1261-5.
  • 10 De Waele JJ, Delrue L, Hoste EA, De Vos M, Duyck P, Colardyn FA. Extrapancreatic inflammation on abdominal computed tomography as an early predictor of disease severity in acute pancreatitis: Evaluation of a new scoring system. Pancreas 2007;34:185-90.
  • 11 Bollen TL, Singh VK, Maurer R, Repas K, van Es HW, Banks PA, et al. A comparative evaluation of radiologic and clinical scoring systems in the early prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:612-9.
  • 12 Leung T-K, Lee C-M, Lin S-Y, Chen H-C, Wang H-J, Shen L-K, et al. Balthazar computed tomography severity index is superior to Ranson criteria and APACHE II scoring system in predicting acute pancreatitis outcome. World J Gastroenterol 2005 14;11:6049-52.
  • 13 Cho JH, Kim TN, Chung HH, Kim KH. Comparison of scoring systems in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:2387-94.
  • 14 Koziel D, Gluszek S, Matykiewicz J, Lewitowicz P, Drozdzak Z. Comparative analysis of selected scales to assess prognosis in acute pancreatitis. Can J GastroenterolHepatol. 2015;29:299-303.
  • 15 Bradley EL III. A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, Ga. Arch Surg 1993;128:586-90.
  • 16 Bollen TL, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, van Leeuwen MS, Horvath KD, Freeny PC, et al.; Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. The Atlanta Classification of acute pancreatitis revisited. Br J Surg 2008;95:6-21.
  • 17 Thoeni RF. The revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis: Its importance for the radiologist and its effect on treatment. Radiology 2012;262:751-64.
  • 18 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Goosven HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: Revision of the Atlanta classification and definations by international consensus. Gut 2013;62:102-11.
  • 19 Zaheer A, Singh VK, Qureshi RO, Fishman EK. The revised Atlanta classificationfor acute pancreatitis: Updates in imaging terminology and guidelines. Abdom Imaging 2013;38:125-36.
  • 20 Sureka B, Bansal K, Patidar Y, Arora A. Imaging lexicon for acute pancreatitis: 2012 Atlanta Classification revisited. Gastroenterol Rep 2016;4:16-23.
  • 21 Sarr MG, Banks PA, Bollen TL. Revision of the Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis. Acute Pancreatitis Classification Workgroup [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2011 Apr 8]. Available from http://www.pancreasclub.com/resources/AtlantaClassification.
  • 22 Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV, Bernard GR, Sprung CL, Sibbald WJ. Multiple organ dysfunction score: A reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 1995;23:1638-52.
  • 23 Sharma V, Rana SS, Sharma RK, Kang M, Gupta R, Bhasin DK. A study of radiological scoring system evaluating extrapancreatic inflammation with conventional radiological and clinical scores in predicting outcomes in acute pancreatitis. Ann Gastroenterol 2015;28:399-404.
  • 24 Raghuwanshi S, Gupta R, Vyas MM, Sharma R. CT Evaluation of Acute Pancreatitis and its Prognostic Correlation with CT Severity Index. J ClinDiagn Res 2016;10:6-11.
  • 25 Wig JD, Bharathy KG, Kochhar R, Yadav TD, Kudari AK, Doley RP, et al. Correlates of organ failure in severe acute pancreatitis. JOP 2009;10:271-5.
  • 26 Büchler MW, Gloor B, Müller CA, Friess H, Seiler CA, Uhl W. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis: Treatment strategy according to the status of infection. Ann Surg 2000;232:619-26.
  • 27 Johnson CD, Abu-Hilal M. Persistent organ failure during the first week as a marker of fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis. Gut 2004;53:1340-4.
  • 28 Phillip V, Steiner JM, Algül H. Early phase of acute pancreatitis: Assessment and management. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2014;5:158-68.
  • 29 Manrai M, Kochhar R, Thandassery RB, Alfadda AA, Sinha SK. The Revised Atlanta Classification of Acute Pancreatitis: A Work Still in Progress? JOP 2015;16:356-64.