4.5 Article

Levothyroxine dose following thyroidectomy is affected by more than just body weight

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 122, 期 4, 页码 834-838

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23186

关键词

Thyroidectomy; thyroid nodules; thyroid cancer; thyroid hormone replacement; levothyroxine; Level of Evidence: 2b

资金

  1. Department of Internal Medicine
  2. Department of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology
  3. Eppley Cancer Center, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: To determine the factors that affect levothyroxine (LT4) requirements following thyroidectomy. Study Design: Retrospective study. Methods: This study evaluated 246 participants who had undergone total thyroidectomy and were on a stable dose of LT4. Actual weight- based (AWB) and ideal body weight- based (IBWB) LT4 dose requirements were analyzed, and other confounders including adherence, concurrent medications, comorbidities, female menopausal status, and hormone replacement therapy were examined. Results: A total of 205 women and 41 men were evaluated, with 48 (20%) benign and 198 (80%) malignant pathology findings. The mean AWB LT4 doses for men and premenopausal women were similar among members of the benign groups and similar among members of the malignant groups. There was a trend for lower dose LT4 in postmenopausal women off hormonal therapy (PM/NH) and on hormonal therapy (PM/H) in the benign group (1.4 and 1.6 lg/kg vs. 1.8 lg/kg in the men and premenopausal women) and a trend for lower dose LT4 in the PM/H women in the malignant group (1.9 lg/kgvs. 2.1 and 2.2 lg/kg in the men and premenopausal women), but they were not significant. However, PM/NH women required significantly less LT4 (1.7 lg/kg) than both the men (2.2 lg/kg) and premenopausal women (2.1 lg/kg) in the malignant group (P.0006). The IBWB LT4 dosage was not statistically different between groups. Conclusions: LT4 dosage following thyroidectomy, calculated using actual body weight,

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

4.5
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