Determinants of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis: A Nation-wide Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare and validate the different classifications of severity in acute pancreatitis (AP) and to investigate which characteristics of the disease are associated with worse outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: AP is a heterogeneous disease, ranging from uneventful cases to patients with considerable morbidity and high mortality rates. Severity classifications based on legitimate determinants of severity are important to correctly describe the course of disease. METHODS: A prospective multicenter cohort study involving patients with AP from 23 hospitals in Spain. The Atlanta Classification (AC), Revised Atlanta Classification (RAC), and Determinant-based Classification (DBC) were compared. Binary logistic multivariate analysis was performed to investigate independent determinants of severity. RESULTS: A total of 1655 patients were included; 70 patients (4.2%) died. RAC and DBC were equally superior to AC for describing the clinical course of AP. Although any kind of organ failure was associated with increased morbidity and mortality, persistent organ failure (POF) was the most significant determinant of severity. All local complications were associated with worse outcomes. Infected pancreatic necrosis correlated with high morbidity, but in the presence of POF, it was not associated to higher mortality when compared with sterile necrotizing pancreatitis. Exacerbation of previous comorbidity was associated with increased morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: The RAC and DBC both signify an advance in the description and differentiation of AP patients. Herein, we describe the complications of the disease independently associated to morbidity and mortality. Our findings are valuable not only when designing future studies on AP but also for the improvement of current classifications.

Prospective observational study of the incidental findings on endoscopic ultrasonography: should a complete exploration always be performed?

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the additional non-suspected new diagnoses made on upper endosonography (EUS) which were unknown before the procedure, and to analyse their influence on the management of patients. A further objective was to evaluate the influence that previous radiological or endoscopic explorations have on the capacity of EUS to diagnose these unsuspected lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During a 2-year period every patient sent to our unit for upper EUS underwent a complete investigation, after signing an informed consent document. An upper EUS was considered as complete whenever the gut wall, pancreas, biliary tract, ampulla, large abdominal vessels, liver, spleen, left adrenal gland, posterior mediastinum and thyroid lobes had been explored. An additional diagnosis (AD) was defined as a diagnosis made on EUS that was previously unknown and not suspected. A significant additional diagnosis (SAD) was defined as an AD that required further study. The results of complementary explorations carried out before EUS were registered. RESULTS: A total of 239 patients were included in the study. ADs were found in 92 patients (38.5%), which were considered to be SADs in 27 patients (11.3%). Those patients had previously undergone computed tomography (CT) and those who underwent more than one exploration had fewer incidences of ADs on EUS (p=0.03 and p=0.02, respectively). No exploration alone or in combination with others showed any influence on the capacity of EUS to find a SAD (p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, an AD was found on upper endosonography in 38.5% of the patients studied, and a SAD in 11.3%. The probability of finding a SAD on EUS is not influenced by previous endoscopic or radiologic explorations.