Gaoli Liu1, Jing Tao2, Zhongchao Zhu2, Weixing Wang3. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, 238 Jiefang Road, Wuhan city, Hubei province 430060, PR China. 2. Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, 238 Jiefang Road, Wuhan city, Hubei province 430060, PR China. 3. Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, 238 Jiefang Road, Wuhan city, Hubei province 430060, PR China. Electronic address: 13392186@qq.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic value of inflammation-based prognostic markers with the more mature scoring system BISAP in patients with AP and identify the best predictors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the data of patients with AP who were treated in our hospital from January 2017 to March 2018 and compared the prognostic value of these inflammation-based prognostic markers with the BISAP score in patients with AP. RESULTS: Higher BISAP score, NLR, PLR, ACC, and BUN gradually increased (all P < 0.05), and lower LMR and TC (P < 0.001) were associated with severity of AP. Compared with the patients without persistent organ failure, the patients with POF were older (P = 0.049) and had a higher BISAP score (P < 0.001), NLR (P = 0.003), PLR (P < 0.001) and ACC (P = 0.047), BUN (P = 0.011), and creatinine (P = 0.023), RDW (P = 0.021), but lower LMR (P = 0.003) and TC (P < 0.001) at baseline. The BISAP score (OR = 2.117, 95% CI 1.487 to 3.016, P < 0.001), NLR (OR = 1.053, 95% CI: 1.009 to 1.101, P = 0.019) and TC (OR = 0.088, 95% CI: 0.024 to 1.030, P < 0.001) were independent factors for predicting SAP. For predicting the occurrence of POF, TC and PLR had an area under the ROC curve (TC AUC = 0.784, P < 0.001, with a 2.18 cut-off value, PLR AUC = 0.731, P < 0.001, with a 173.13 cut-off value) that was not inferior to the BISAP score (AUC = 0.708), and PLR had the best sensitivity (95.8%), BUN had the best specificity (44.71%), respectively. There is no difference in their predictive value for POF. CONCLUSIONS: NLR and TC are the most powerful markers in this patient series, they have a prognostic value which is not weaker than BISAP, and are equally simple, rapid.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic value of inflammation-based prognostic markers with the more mature scoring system BISAP in patients with AP and identify the best predictors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the data of patients with AP who were treated in our hospital from January 2017 to March 2018 and compared the prognostic value of these inflammation-based prognostic markers with the BISAP score in patients with AP. RESULTS: Higher BISAP score, NLR, PLR, ACC, and BUN gradually increased (all P < 0.05), and lower LMR and TC (P < 0.001) were associated with severity of AP. Compared with the patients without persistent organ failure, the patients with POF were older (P = 0.049) and had a higher BISAP score (P < 0.001), NLR (P = 0.003), PLR (P < 0.001) and ACC (P = 0.047), BUN (P = 0.011), and creatinine (P = 0.023), RDW (P = 0.021), but lower LMR (P = 0.003) and TC (P < 0.001) at baseline. The BISAP score (OR = 2.117, 95% CI 1.487 to 3.016, P < 0.001), NLR (OR = 1.053, 95% CI: 1.009 to 1.101, P = 0.019) and TC (OR = 0.088, 95% CI: 0.024 to 1.030, P < 0.001) were independent factors for predicting SAP. For predicting the occurrence of POF, TC and PLR had an area under the ROC curve (TC AUC = 0.784, P < 0.001, with a 2.18 cut-off value, PLR AUC = 0.731, P < 0.001, with a 173.13 cut-off value) that was not inferior to the BISAP score (AUC = 0.708), and PLR had the best sensitivity (95.8%), BUN had the best specificity (44.71%), respectively. There is no difference in their predictive value for POF. CONCLUSIONS: NLR and TC are the most powerful markers in this patient series, they have a prognostic value which is not weaker than BISAP, and are equally simple, rapid.
Authors: Yaroslav M Susak; Olexandr O Dirda; Olexandr G Fedorchuk; Olekcandr A Tkachenko; Larysa M Skivka Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Emese Réka Bálint; Gabriella Fűr; Lóránd Kiss; Dávid István Németh; Alexandra Soós; Péter Hegyi; Zsolt Szakács; Benedek Tinusz; Péter Varjú; Áron Vincze; Bálint Erőss; József Czimmer; Zoltán Szepes; Gábor Varga; Zoltán Rakonczay Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Greta Maria Dancu; Alina Popescu; Roxana Sirli; Mirela Danila; Felix Bende; Cristi Tarta; Ioan Sporea Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Peter R Farrell; Lindsey Hornung; Peter Farmer; Angelica W DesPain; Esther Kim; Ryan Pearman; Beemnet Neway; Ashley Serrette; Sona Sehgal; James E Heubi; Tom K Lin; Jaimie D Nathan; David S Vitale; Maisam Abu-El-Haija Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.288