We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
The Atlanta Classification, Revised Atlanta Classification, and Determinant-Based Classification of Acute Pancreatitis: Which Is Best at Stratifying Outcomes?
Pancreas 2016 April
OBJECTIVES: To determine which classification is more accurate in stratifying severity.
METHODS: The study used a retrospective analysis of a prospective acute pancreatitis database (June 2005-December 2007). Acute pancreatitis severity was stratified according to the Atlanta classification (AC) 1992, the revised Atlanta classification (RAC) 2012, and the determinant-based classification (DBC) 2012. Receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve) compared the accuracy of each classification. Logistic regression identified predictors of mortality.
RESULTS: 338 patients were analyzed: 13% had persistent organ failure (POF) (>48 hours), of whom 37% had multisystem POF, and 11% had pancreatic necrosis, of whom 19% had infected necrosis. Mortality was 4.1%. For predicting mortality (area under the curve), the RAC (0.91) and DBC (0.92) were comparable (P = 0.404); both outperformed the AC (0.81) (P < 0.001). For intensive care unit admission, the RAC (0.85) and DBC (0.85) were comparable (P = 0.949); both outperformed the AC (0.79) (P < 0.05). There were 2 patients in the critical category of the DBC. Multisystem POF was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 75.0; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-410.6; P < 0.001), whereas single-system POF, sterile necrosis, and infected necrosis were not.
CONCLUSION: The RAC and DBC were generally comparable in stratifying severity. The paucity of patients in the critical category in the DBC limits its utility. Neither classification accounts for the impact of multisystem POF, which was the strongest predictor of mortality.
METHODS: The study used a retrospective analysis of a prospective acute pancreatitis database (June 2005-December 2007). Acute pancreatitis severity was stratified according to the Atlanta classification (AC) 1992, the revised Atlanta classification (RAC) 2012, and the determinant-based classification (DBC) 2012. Receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve) compared the accuracy of each classification. Logistic regression identified predictors of mortality.
RESULTS: 338 patients were analyzed: 13% had persistent organ failure (POF) (>48 hours), of whom 37% had multisystem POF, and 11% had pancreatic necrosis, of whom 19% had infected necrosis. Mortality was 4.1%. For predicting mortality (area under the curve), the RAC (0.91) and DBC (0.92) were comparable (P = 0.404); both outperformed the AC (0.81) (P < 0.001). For intensive care unit admission, the RAC (0.85) and DBC (0.85) were comparable (P = 0.949); both outperformed the AC (0.79) (P < 0.05). There were 2 patients in the critical category of the DBC. Multisystem POF was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 75.0; 95% confidence interval, 13.7-410.6; P < 0.001), whereas single-system POF, sterile necrosis, and infected necrosis were not.
CONCLUSION: The RAC and DBC were generally comparable in stratifying severity. The paucity of patients in the critical category in the DBC limits its utility. Neither classification accounts for the impact of multisystem POF, which was the strongest predictor of mortality.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app