4.3 Article

Case detection and diagnosis of primary aldosteronism - The consensus of Taiwan Society of Aldosteronism

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE FORMOSAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 116, 期 12, 页码 993-1005

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2017.06.004

关键词

Primary aldosteronism; Guideline; TAIPAI; TSA

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of the Republic of China (Taiwan) [MOST 106-2321-B-182-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: Even though the increasing clinical recognition of primary aldosteronism (PA) as a public health issue, its heightened risk profiles and the availability of targeted surgical/medical treatment being more understood, consensus in its diagnosis and management based on medical evidence, while recognizing the constraints of our real-world clinical practice in Taiwan, has not been reached. Methods: The Taiwan Society of Aldosteronism (TSA) Task Force acknowledges the above-mentioned issues and reached this Taiwan PA consensus at its inaugural meeting, in order to provide updated information of internationally acceptable standards, and also to incorporate our local disease characteristics into the management of PA. Results: When there is suspicion of PA, a plasma aldosterone to renin ratio (ARR) should be obtained initially. Patients with abnormal ARR will undergo confirmatory laboratory and image tests. Subtype classification with adrenal venous sampling (AVS) or NP-59 nuclear imaging, if AVS not available, to lateralize PA is recommended when patients are considered for adrenalectomy. The strengths and weaknesses of the currently available identification methods are discussed, focusing especially on result interpretation. Conclusion: With this consensus we hope to raise more awareness of PA among medical professionals and hypertensive patients in Taiwan, and to facilitate reconciliation of better detection, identification and treatment of patients with PA. Copyright (C) 2017, Formosan Medical Association. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.

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

4.3
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