4.1 Article

Hypopituitarism following severe traumatic brain injury

期刊

出版社

JOHANN AMBROSIUS BARTH VERLAG MEDIZINVERLAGE HEIDELBERG GMBH
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-924254

关键词

severe traumatic brain injury; hypopituitarism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although hypopituitarism is a known complication of traumatic head injury, it may be under-recognized due to its subtle clinical manifestations. To address this issue, we determine the prevalence of neuroendocrine abnormalities in patients rehabilitating from severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale <= 8). 76 patients (mean age 39 +/- 14 yr; range 18-65; 53 males and 23 females; BMI 25.8 +/- 4.2 kg/m(2); mean +/- SD) with a severe traumatic brain injury, an average of 22 10 months before this study (median, 20 months), underwent a series of standard endocrine tests, including TSH, free T4, T4, T3, prolactin, testosterone (males), estradiol (females), cortisol, ACTH, GH, and IGF-I. All subjects also underwent GH response to GHRH + arginine. Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) was defined as a GH response < 9 mu g/L to GHRH + arginine and was confirmed by ITT (< 3 mu g/L). Pituitary deficiency was shown in 24 % of the patients (18/76). 8 % (n = 6) had GHD (GH-peak range [GHRH + arginine]: 2.8 - 6.3 mu g/L; GH-peak range [ITT]: 1.5 - 2.2 mu g/L; IGF-I range: 62 - 174 mu g/L). 17 % (n = 13) had hypogonadism (total testosterone < 9.5 nmol/L and low gonadotropins in 12 males; low estradiol, and low gonadotropins in 1 female). Total testosterone levels did not correlate with BMI or age. 2 males with hypogonadism also showed a mild hyperprolactinemia (33 and 41 ng/ml). 3 % (n = 2) patients had partial ACTH-deficiency (cortisol-peak [ITT] 392 and 417 nmol/L) and 3 % (n = 2) had TSH-deficiency. In summary, we have found hypopituitarism in one-fourth of patients with predominantly secondary hypogonadism and GHD. These findings strongly suggest that patients who suffer head trauma must routinely include neuroendocrine evaluations.

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

4.1
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