4.3 Article

Strategies to reduce readmissions for hyponatremia after transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 62, 期 2, 页码 333-339

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-018-1656-7

关键词

Pituitary tumor; Hyponatremia; SIADH; Transsphenoidal surgery; Readmissions

资金

  1. NIH/NIDDK T32 grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeDisorders of water balance, particularly hyponatremia from altered antidiuretic hormone (ADH) secretion, are a common post-operative complication of transsphenoidal surgery (TSS). We present our results from implementation of a 2-week 1.5 liter/daily fluid restriction on readmission rates for hyponatremia.MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed on 295 patients that underwent TSS for pituitary adenomas at the University of Colorado, between March 2014 and March 2017. Groups were divided into those before and after the implementation of a two-week, 1.5 liter daily fluid restriction and measurement of a serum sodium level 7 days (+/- 2 days) after discharge. A standard-of-care approach for variable degrees of hyponatremia was also utilized to guide hyponatremia management. Patient demographics, hospital course, post-operative complication rates, and rates of hospital admissions for hyponatremia were then evaluated.ResultsReadmissions for symptomatic hyponatremia within 30 days of TSS occurred in 9 of 118 (7.6%) of patients prior to fluid restriction implementation and in four of 169 (2.4%) of patients in the post-implementation, fluid-restricted group (p-value=0.04): a 70% reduction in hospitalizations. The two groups were similarly matched for pituitary tumor sub-type, age and gender. None of these factors were predictive for hyponatremia. Importantly, the mild fluid restriction did not result in any hospital readmissions for hypernatremia.ConclusionsMild fluid restriction (to 1.5 liters daily), in addition to a single post-operative serum sodium level, is an effective approach to preventing readmission for hyponatremia after TSS for pituitary adenomas.

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