4.3 Article

Clinical characterization of patients with primary aldosteronism plus subclinical Cushing's syndrome

Journal

BMC ENDOCRINE DISORDERS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12902-020-0490-0

Keywords

Primary aldosteronism; Subclinical Cushing's syndrome; Adrenal tumor; Maximum tumor diameter; Diabetes mellitus; Serum potassium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Primary aldosteronism (PA) plus subclinical Cushing's syndrome (SCS), PASCS, has occasionally been reported. We aimed to clinically characterize patients with PASCS who are poorly profiled. Methods: A population-based, retrospective, single-center, observational study was conducted in 71 patients (age, 58.211.2 years; 24 males and 47 females) who developed PA (n = 45), SCS (n = 12), or PASCS (n = 14). The main outcome measures were the proportion of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), serum potassium concentration, and maximum tumor diameter (MTD) on the computed tomography (CT) scans. Results: The proportion of DM patients was significantly greater in the PASCS group than in the PA group (50.0% vs. 13.9%, p < 0.05), without a significant difference between the PASCS and SCS groups. Serum potassium concentration was significantly lower in the PASCS group than in the SCS group (3.2 +/- 0.8 mEq/L vs. 4.0 +/- 0.5 mEq/L; p < 0.01), without a significant difference between the PASCS and PA groups. Among the 3 study groups of patients who had a unilateral adrenal tumor, MTD was significantly greater in the PASCS group than in the PA group (2.7 +/- 0.1 cm vs. 1.4 +/- 0.1 cm; p < 0.001), without a significant difference between the PASCS and SCS groups. Conclusions: Any reference criteria were not obtained that surely distinguish patients with PASCS from those with PA or SCS. However, clinicians should suspect the presence of concurrent SCS in patients with PA when detecting a relatively large adrenal tumor on the CT scans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available