4.7 Article

Long-Term Cardio- and Cerebrovascular Events in Patients With Primary Aldosteronism

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 98, 期 12, 页码 4826-4833

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2013-2805

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aldosterone plays a detrimental role on the cardiovascular system and PA patients display a higher risk of events compared with EH. Objectives: The objectives of the study were to compare cardio-and cerebrovascular events in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) and matched essential hypertension (EH). Methods: We retrospectively compared the percentage of patients experiencing events at baseline and during a median follow-up of 12 years in 270 PA patients case-control matched 1:3 with EH patients and in PA subtypes [aldosterone-producing adenoma (n = 57); bilateral adrenal hyperplasia (n = 213)] vs matched EH. Results: A significantly higher number of PA patients experienced cardiovascular events over the entire period of the study (22.6% vs 12.7%, P < .001). At the diagnosis of PA, a higher number of patients had experienced total events (14.1% vs 8.4% EH, P = .007); furthermore, during the follow-up period, PA patients had a higher rate of events (8.5% vs 4.3% EH, P = .008). In particular, stroke and arrhythmias were more frequent in PA patients. During the follow-up, a higher percentage of PA patients developed type 2 diabetes. Parameters that were independently associated with the occurrence of all events were age, duration of hypertension, systolic blood pressure, presence of diabetes mellitus, and PA diagnosis. After division into PA subtypes, patients with either aldosterone-producing adenoma or bilateral adrenal hyperplasia displayed a higher rate of events compared with the matched EH patients. Conclusions: This study demonstrates in a large population of patients the pathogenetic role of aldosterone excess in the cardiovascular system and thus the importance of early diagnosis and targeted PA treatment.

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

4.7
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