
==== Front
Indian J Crit Care Med
Indian J Crit Care Med
IJCCM
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine : Peer-reviewed, Official Publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine
0972-5229
1998-359X
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers

39130381
10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24735
Editorial
Synergizing Survival: Uniting Acute Gastrointestinal Injury Grade and Disease Severity Scores in Critical Care Prognostication
Patnaik Rohit Kumar 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2321-0743

Karan Nupur 2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0310-4043

1 Department of Critical Care Medicine, Medeor 24×7 Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Rohit Kumar Patnaik, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Medeor 24×7 Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Phone: +91 9833116430, e-mail: rohitpatnaik09@gmail.com
6 2024
31 5 2024
28 6 529530
Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ © The Author(s). 2024 Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
How to cite this article: Patnaik RK, Karan N. Synergizing Survival: Uniting Acute Gastrointestinal Injury Grade and Disease Severity Scores in Critical Care Prognostication. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(6):529–530.

Keywords

Acute gastrointestinal injury
APACHE II score
Disease severity scores
mNUTRIC score
Mortality prediction
Prognostication
SAPS II Score
SOFA score
==== Body
pmcIn the complex landscape of critical care medicine, the quest for reliable prognostic tools continues to be a paramount concern. As intensivists, the guardians of the critically ill, navigate a landscape fraught with uncertainty, the need for accurate risk stratification and outcome prediction remains a cornerstone of effective clinical decision-making. Amidst this backdrop, the emergence of the Acute Gastrointestinal Injury (AGI) grade represents a promising stride forward in prognostication, offering a nuanced lens through which to assess gastrointestinal dysfunction and its implications for patient outcomes.1

The AGI grade, originally proposed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) Working Group on Abdominal Problems, has garnered attention for its ability to assess gastrointestinal dysfunction in critically ill patients comprehensively.1 This scoring system encompasses a spectrum of gastrointestinal insults, including bowel obstruction, gastrointestinal bleeding, pancreatic injury, and hepatic dysfunction, among others. By integrating clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters, the AGI grade provides a holistic framework for evaluating gastrointestinal injury severity and predicting patient outcomes.

One of the key strengths of the AGI grade lies in its versatility and applicability across diverse patient populations. Whether managing patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) following major surgery, septic shock, trauma, or multiorgan failure, the AGI grade offers a standardized approach to assessing gastrointestinal dysfunction and stratifying risk. This standardized assessment facilitates communication among healthcare teams, promotes early recognition of complications, and guides targeted interventions to optimize patient care.

Furthermore, the prognostic value of the AGI grade extends beyond its ability to predict mortality. Studies have demonstrated its utility in forecasting the development of infectious complications, organ failure, prolonged ICU stays, and other adverse outcomes.2,3 This prognostic insight empowers clinicians to tailor therapeutic strategies, such as early enteral nutrition, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and close monitoring for gastrointestinal complications, based on individual patient risk profiles.

Despite its promising attributes, the AGI grade is not without limitations and challenges. Variability in scoring interpretations, the need for ongoing validation and refinement, and the potential influence of confounding factors underscore the importance of cautious interpretation and integration with clinical judgment.4,5 Additionally, the dynamic nature of gastrointestinal dysfunction in critically ill patients necessitates regular reassessment and adjustment of prognostic assessments based on evolving clinical scenarios.

A novel Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Score (GIDS) has been devised, building upon the rationale of the previously established AGI grading system.4 The GIDS employs a structured composition of symptoms rather than relying on a broad subjective assessment in AGI grading. Additionally, it takes into account intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and gastric residual volume (GRV). Biomarkers such as the plasma citrulline and Intestinal Fatty Acid-binding Protein (I-FABP) have been investigated as predictors of AGI.6

Disease severity scores, encompassing a diverse array of scoring systems and indices, serve as indispensable tools for risk stratification, prognostication, and therapeutic decision-making in critical care settings. One of the hallmarks of disease severity scores is their versatility and applicability across various critical illnesses and patient populations. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) are among the commonly used tools that integrate clinical, laboratory, and physiological parameters to estimate disease severity and prognosis.7 However, applying these scores specifically to AGI cases requires careful consideration of gastrointestinal-specific variables and their impact on outcomes.

While mortality remains a crucial endpoint for assessing disease severity and treatment efficacy, predicting survival in patients with AGI is fraught with challenges.1 One of the key challenges in mortality prediction for AGI lies in the dynamic nature of gastrointestinal dysfunction and its interplay with systemic inflammation, organ failure, and treatment responses. Gastrointestinal injuries can manifest acutely or evolve over time, necessitating ongoing assessment and adaptation of prognostic models. Additionally, the heterogeneity of AGI etiologies, ranging from ischemic insults to postoperative complications, further complicates mortality prediction and risk stratification.

To circumvent the challenges faced with AGI grade and disease severity scores independently, Pham Dang Hai et al. study published in this edition of IJCCM investigates the performance of the AGI grade in conjunction with disease severity scores for predicting mortality in critically ill patients.8 A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the ICU from May 2021 to December 2021, collecting demographic and clinical data. The results showed that AGI was observed in 47.3% of cases, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 30.1%. The performance of AGI grade, SOFA, APACHE II, and mNUTRIC score in predicting in-hospital mortality of critically ill patients was assessed with ROC curves. The AUC for AGI was 0.67, similar to the AUC of SOFA, APACHE II, and mNUTRIC score. When combining AGI with mNUTRIC score, the AUC for predicting in-hospital mortality significantly increased compared to AGI alone. Similarly, combining AGI grade with the APACHE II or SOFA scores also resulted in higher AUC values than AGI grade alone.

Although previous studies have examined the role of the AGI grade in mortality prediction in critically ill patients, this study by Pham Dang Hai et al is novel as it combines AGI grade with established disease severity scores.2,3,9 The substantial improvement in the ability to predict in-hospital mortality by combining these scores only strengthens the importance of the research. The retrospective nature of the study is the primary limitation. Retrospective studies are subject to several pitfalls and biases that warrant careful consideration and interpretation.

In conclusion, by harnessing the synergy of AGI grading with traditional disease severity scoring systems and emerging biomarkers like plasma citrulline, intensivists can strive towards more accurate, personalized, and proactive prognostication, ultimately improving outcomes and quality of care for patients facing the complexities of AGI in the critical care setting. Looking ahead, collaborative efforts among clinicians, researchers, and healthcare organizations are essential to further elucidating prospectively the prognostic value of the AGI grade, addressing its limitations, and integrating it into evidence-based practice guidelines.

Orcid

Rohit Kumar Patnaik https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2321-0743

Nupur Karan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0310-4043

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None
==== Refs
References

1. Reintam Blaser A Malbrain MLNG Starkopf J Fruhwald S Jakob SM De Waele J et al. Gastrointestinal function in intensive care patients: Terminology, definitions and management. Recommendations of the ESICM Working Group on Abdominal Problems Intensive Care Med 2012 38 3 384 394 10.1007/s00134-011-2459-y 22310869
2. Zhang D Li Y Ding L Fu Y Dong X Li H Prevalence and outcome of acute gastrointestinal injury in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Medicine 2018 97 43 e12970 10.1097/MD.0000000000012970 30412121
3. Hu B Sun R Wu A Ni Y Liu J Guo F et al. Severity of acute gastrointestinal injury grade is a predictor of all-cause mortality in critically ill patients: A multicenter, prospective, observational study Crit Care 2017 21 1 188 10.1186/s13054-017-1780-4 28709443
4. Reintam Blaser A Padar M Mändul M Elke G Engel C Fischer K et al. Development of the Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Score (GIDS) for critically ill patients – A prospective multicenter observational study (iSOFA study) Clinical Nutrition 2021 40 8 4932 4940 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.07.015 34358839
5. Wang W Chen H Zhang H Li W Wu S Acute gastrointestinal injury in the intensive care unit: A retrospective study Ther Clin Risk Manag 2015 1523 10.2147/TCRM.S92829 26491339
6. Tyszko M Lemańska-Perek A Śmiechowicz J Tomaszewska P Biecek P Gozdzik W et al. Citrulline, intestinal fatty acid-binding protein and the acute gastrointestinal injury score as predictors of gastrointestinal failure in patients with sepsis and septic shock Nutrients 2023 15 9 2100 10.3390/nu15092100 37432225
7. Bouch DC Thompson JP Severity scoring systems in the critically ill Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain 2008 8 5 181 185 10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkn033
8. Hai PD Tot NH Thao LT Khoa Q Thien DH Prognostic value of acute gastrointestinal injury combined with disease severity scores in critically ill patients Indian J Crit Care Med 2024 28 6 575 580 39130390
9. Ding L Chen HY Wang JY Xiong HF He WH Xia L et al. Severity of acute gastrointestinal injury grade is a good predictor of mortality in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis World J Gastroenterol 2020 26 5 514 523 10.3748/wjg.v26.i5.514 32089627
