摘要目的 探讨急性胰腺炎严重程度床旁指数(BISAP)、Ranson评分、改良CT严重指数(MCTSI)和急性生理与慢性健康评分Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)4种评分系统在高脂血症性急性胰腺炎(HLAP)病情和预后评估中的价值.方法 回顾性分析2006年8月至2015年7月326例HLAP患者的临床资料,采用卡方检验和ROC曲线评估4种评分系统预测患者病情严重程度、并发症和死亡的价值.结果 BISAP评分≥3分、Ranson评分≥3分、APACHEⅡ评分≥8分及MCTSI评分≥4分者的中、重度急性胰腺炎发生率、并发症发生率、病死率均分别高于BISAP评分＜3分、Ranson评分＜3分、APACHEⅡ评分＜8分及MCTSI评分＜4分者,差异均有统计学意义(P值均＜0.05).对病情严重程度的评估和预测方面,APACHEⅡ评分的敏感度(57％)和AUC值(0.814)最大,BISAP评分的敏感度(54％)和AUC值(0.795)次之.对并发症的评估和预测方面,MCTSI评分的敏感度(68％)和AUC值(0.791)最大,Ranson评分的敏感度(57％)次之,BISAP评分的AUC值(0.731)次之.对死亡的评估和预测方面,BISAP评分的AUC值(0.867)最大,APACHEⅡ评分AUC值(0.854)次之;在敏感度方面,APACHEⅡ评分和BISAP评分最高,均为89％.结论 4种评分系统均可用于HLAP病情严重程度、并发症发生率和死亡的判断.与其他3种评分系统相比,BISAP在准确性上具有一定优势,且简便、易行,但总体预测准确性均有待于进一步提高.

abstractsObjective To explore the four criteria,including bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis(BISAP),Ranson score,modified CT severity index(MCTSI) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation scoring system Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) in assessment of severity and prognosis of hyperlipidemic acute pancreatitis.Methods A total of 326 patients with hyperlipidemic acute pancreatitis were studied retrospectively from August 2006 to July 2015.The discrepancy of the four criteria in assessment of severity and prognosis of hyperlipidemic acute pancreatitis was compared with chi-square test and receiver operating characteristic curve.Results The incidences of moderately severe acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis,local complications and mortality of patients with BISAP score ≥3,Ranson score ≥3,APACHE Ⅱ score≥8 and MCTSI score≥4 were significantly higher than BISAP score ＜ 3,Ranson score ＜ 3,APACHE Ⅱ score ＜ 8 and MCTSI ＜ 4 respectively (all P ＜ 0.05).As far as severity was concerned,the sensitivity and AUC of APACHE Ⅱ were 57％ and 0.814,which were higher than the other systems.The second most sensitive criterion was BISAP.In assessment of local complications,the sensitivity and AUC of MCTSI were 68％ and 0.791,which were higher than the other three.The most sensitive criterion to predict mortality was BISAP with sensitivity 89％ and AUC 0.867,which was followed by APACHE Ⅱ.Conclusions All four criteria can be used to determine the severity,local complications and mortality.Generally,BISAP is simple and easy to practice,and better than the other three.