# Comparative analysis of computed tomography severity indices in predicting the severity and clinical outcome in patients with acute pancreatitis

## TL;DR

This study compares two CT-based severity indices for acute pancreatitis and finds that the modified index is more accurate in predicting disease severity and outcomes.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that the modified CT severity index (MCSI) is a more accurate predictor of acute pancreatitis severity and outcomes than the original CT severity index (CSI).

## Key findings

- MCSI showed higher accuracy than CSI in predicting critical care requirements and infections in acute pancreatitis.
- MCSI had a higher area under the curve (AUC) compared to CSI, indicating better predictive performance.
- Both CSI and MCSI correlated with Ranson’s criteria, but MCSI showed a stronger correlation.

## Abstract

Background: Acute pancreatitis (AP) has unpredictable severity. Its management is based on initial assessment of disease severity. It ranges from mild interstitial to severe necrotic form; the latter is associated with poor prognosis. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is the gold standard in early detection of pancreatic necrosis and in assessing the severity of AP. Two CT grading systems exist to assess the severity of AP: CT severity Index (CSI) and modified CSI (MCSI). This study compares the usefulness of these two systems in predicting the severity and clinical outcome in AP in comparison with Ranson’s criteria and clinical outcome parameters.

Methods: This is a prospective hospital-based screening study of 80 patients aged >12 years with clinical diagnosis of AP who underwent contrast-enhanced CT study of the abdomen. Comparative analysis between MCSI and CSI with Ranson’s criteria and clinical outcome parameters was assessed by Chi-Squared test.

Results: The accuracy of CSI and MCSI in predicting the requirement of critical care, superadded infection, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and requirement of intervention were 73.0%, 64.5%, 69.8% 60.9% and 77.2%, 76.0%, 74.4% & 56.6% respectively. Area under the curve for MCSI score was significantly higher (AUC: 0.861; 95% CI: 0.736-0.986) than CSI score (AUC:0.815;95% CI:0.749-0.941). MCSI and CSI showed significant correlation with Ranson’s criteria; however, MCSI correlation was better (r:0.53; p<0.01) than CSI (r:0.35;p:0.04).

Conclusion: CSI and MCSI are better predictors of severity, clinical outcome and mortality compared with Ranson’s criteria, with MCSI being more accurate and better predictor than CSI. The accuracy of MCSI is better than CSI for prediction of requirement of critical care, development of superadded infection and development of MODS in AP. However, CSI and MCSI have low accuracy in predicting intervention in AP.