4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Outcome of surgical treatment of primary aldosteronism

期刊

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 400, 期 3, 页码 325-331

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-014-1269-4

关键词

Primary aldosteronism; Blood pressure; Aldosterone; Hypertension; Adrenalectomy; Outcome

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the early and long-term outcomes of the surgical treatment of primary aldosteronism (PA), the most common surgically correctable cause of endocrine hypertension. Serum Potassium levels, blood pressure values, and aldosterone/renin ratio (ARR) were assessed in 128 patients undergoing unilateral adrenalectomy for PA, before and after surgery. The role of lateralizing techniques and the relationship between outcome and histopathology findings were also evaluated. Biochemical cure of PA (ARR and kalemia normalization) was achieved in 95 % of patients, at early follow-up. Single aldosterone-producing adenoma, multinodular hyperplasia, and diffuse hyperplasia were found in 46, 45, and 9 % of the patients, respectively. No relationship between histopathology and persistence or recurrence of PA was found. The use of further lateralizing techniques in addition to computed tomography or magnetic resonance was the main predictor of PA cure (p = 0.02); adrenal venous sampling (AVS) was more accurate than scintigraphy in PA lateralization (p < 0.05). After surgery, hypertension was cured in 55 % and improved in 36 % of patients. Female gender, a lower number of antihypertensive drugs, and a shorter duration of hypertension were the main predictors of hypertension cure. At long-term, recurrent PA occurred in 3.7 % of cases. Early diagnosis and correct lateralization of hyperaldosteronism by means of AVS are keys to achieve surgical cure of PA and PA-related hypertension. PA may be also caused by unilateral hyperplasia, which may be cured by unilateral adrenalectomy. Recurrences of PA are rare, although a prolonged follow-up is required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据