Sebastian Manuel Staubli1, Daniel Oertli2, Christian Andreas Nebiker2. 1. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: sebastian.staubli@usb.ch. 2. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess which tools for severity stratification in acute pancreatitis are used in today's daily clinical practice and to what extent the new Atlanta classification is being implemented by the medical community in Switzerland. METHODS: The heads of surgical, medical and emergency departments of Swiss hospitals (n = 83) that directly treat patients with acute pancreatitis were given access to an online survey and asked to forward the questionnaire to their team. The questionnaire consisted of 16 items, including questions about the specialty background of the participants, the allocation of patients with AP, severity assessment, patient management, the role of imaging procedures, and future perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 233 participants from 63 hospitals responded (response rate, 74%). A vast majority of participants [198 (87%)] does assess severity. The most frequently used tools are the Ranson [108 (87%)] and APACHE II scores [28 (23%)]. A majority of the participants were not satisfied with the currently available tools to assess severity [130 (59%)]. A minority [15 (12%)] use the revised Atlanta classification to assess the degree of severity in AP. CONCLUSIONS: The Ranson score remains the dominant risk stratification tool in clinical practice in Switzerland, followed by the APACHE II score. Other modern instruments, such as the Atlanta 2012 classification, have not yet earned broad recognition and have not reached daily practice. Further efforts must be made to expand physicians' awareness of their existence and significance.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess which tools for severity stratification in acute pancreatitis are used in today's daily clinical practice and to what extent the new Atlanta classification is being implemented by the medical community in Switzerland. METHODS: The heads of surgical, medical and emergency departments of Swiss hospitals (n = 83) that directly treat patients with acute pancreatitis were given access to an online survey and asked to forward the questionnaire to their team. The questionnaire consisted of 16 items, including questions about the specialty background of the participants, the allocation of patients with AP, severity assessment, patient management, the role of imaging procedures, and future perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 233 participants from 63 hospitals responded (response rate, 74%). A vast majority of participants [198 (87%)] does assess severity. The most frequently used tools are the Ranson [108 (87%)] and APACHE II scores [28 (23%)]. A majority of the participants were not satisfied with the currently available tools to assess severity [130 (59%)]. A minority [15 (12%)] use the revised Atlanta classification to assess the degree of severity in AP. CONCLUSIONS: The Ranson score remains the dominant risk stratification tool in clinical practice in Switzerland, followed by the APACHE II score. Other modern instruments, such as the Atlanta 2012 classification, have not yet earned broad recognition and have not reached daily practice. Further efforts must be made to expand physicians' awareness of their existence and significance.