These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Value of the different prognostic systems and biological markers for predicting severity and progression of acute pancreatitis.
    Author: Dambrauskas Z, Gulbinas A, Pundzius J, Barauskas G.
    Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol; 2010 Aug; 45(7-8):959-70. PubMed ID: 20367283.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Several tools have been developed for severity stratification in acute pancreatitis (AP). They include single biochemical markers and complex scoring systems, all of which aim at an early detection of severe AP to optimize monitoring and treatment of these patients. The aim of this study was to reassess and compare the value of some known and newly-introduced prognostic markers in the clinical context. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have conducted a prospective observational study. One hundred and eight patients with a diagnosis of AP and onset of the disease within last 72 h were included in this study. Clinical data and expression results of some serum biochemical markers were used for statistical analysis. The diagnostic performance of scores predicting severity and progression of AP, cut-off values, specificity, and sensitivity were established using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Among single biochemical markers, C-reactive protein remains the most useful. Despite its delayed increase, it is accurate, cheap, and widely available. Interleukin-6 and macrophage migration inhibitory factor seem to be new promising parameters for use in clinical routine. Pancreas specific scores (Imrie-Glasgow, pancreatitis outcome prediction) and scores assessing organ dysfunction (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II, multiple organ dysfunction score, and Marshall score) remain of value in determining the severity, complications, and possible outcome of AP. CONCLUSIONS: Indication, timing, and consequences of the methods applied need to be carefully considered and incorporated into clinical assessments. Currently, there is no single prognostic marker that would cover the whole range of problems associated with the treatment of AP. The prediction of severity and progression of AP can be achieved using a series of accurate methods. The decision to undertake interventional or surgical treatment is the most complex task requiring both clinical judgment and meticulous monitoring of the patient.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]