4.7 Review

Long-Term Mortality for Patients of Primary Aldosteronism Compared With Essential Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00121

关键词

primary aldosteronism; essential hypertension; mortality; systematic review; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Consistent evidence have demonstrated that patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) have higher risk of cardiovascular events to patients with essential hypertension (EH). Whether the long-term risk of mortality for PA patients is higher than EH patients is unclear. We aim to compare the long-term mortality of patients with PA to patients with EH. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies from inception to 14 Nov 2018. We combined the relative risks (RR) of each included study by random-effect model. The amount of between study heterogeneity was measured by the I-2 statistic. Results: We totally included six studies with cohort design, including 3,039 PA and 45,495 EH patients. The pooled RRs for patients with PA were 1.97 (95%CI: 1.33, 2.91; P = 0.0007) for a follow-up of 3 years, 0.96 (95%CI: 0.75, 1.23; P = 0.76) for 5 years, 0.86 (95%CI: 0.51, 1.46) for 7.5 years, and 0.95 (95%CI: 0.61, 1.48; P = 0.58) for 10 years. For patients with aldosterone-producing adenomas (APA), evidence of lower risk of long-term mortality was observed. Our sensitivity analysis suggested our results were stable. Conclusions: Current evidence supported a higher risk of mortality for patients with primary aldosteronism at 3 years compared to patients with essential hypertension, however this risk no longer sustains as the follow-up time increased to 5 or more years. Patients with aldosterone-producing adenomas may have lower long-term mortality rate than patients with essential hypertension due to the better recovery of adrenalectomy.

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