4.6 Editorial Material

Controversies about the systematic preoperative pharmacological treatment before pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma surgery

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 186, 期 5, 页码 D17-D24

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-21-0692

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The question of pharmacological treatment before surgery in patients with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) remains controversial. Some teams believe it is unnecessary in certain cases if the surgery is done in a specialized center. This article discusses the potential benefits and risks of alpha blockers, the first-line treatment for PPGL, and debates the use of preoperative pharmacological treatment.
The question of systematic use of a pharmacological treatment before surgery in patients diagnosed with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) remains highly controversial. While recent guidelines suggest that this should be used in all patients, some experienced teams consider it unnecessary in some cases, provided the surgery is performed in a dedicated center that has expert endocrinologists, cardiologists, surgeons, and anesthetists. This controversy is aimed at shedding light on the potential benefits and risks of such a treatment, focusing specifically on alpha blockers which are considered as the first-line medical treatments in patients with PPGL. After discussing the rationale for alpha blockers, hemodynamic instability, tolerance, and acute cardiac complications will then be discussed in the first part of the manuscript, defending a systematic use. The second section will focus on blood pressure control, tolerance of alpha blockers, and also the management of normotensive PPGL, examining the daily risks of PPGL and arguing against the systematic use of a preoperative pharmacological treatment before surgery. Finally, we will discuss the concept of expert centers and define the patients in whom the risk/benefit profile would favor the use of this preoperative 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

4.6
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