4.6 Article

Long-term follow-up of 114 patients with congenital hyperinsulinism

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 149, 期 1, 页码 43-51

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/eje.0.1490043

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The term congenital hyperinsulinism (CHI) comprises a group of different genetic disorders with the common finding of recurrent episodes of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Objective: To evaluate the clinical presentation, diagnostic criteria, treatment and long-term follow-up in a large cohort of CHI patients. Patients: The data from 114 patients from different hospitals were obtained by a detailed questionnaire. Patients presented neonatally (65%), during infancy (28%) or during childhood (7%). Results: In 20 of 74 (27%) patients with neonatal onset birth weight was greatly increased (group with standard deviation scores (SDS) >2.0) with a mean SDS of 3.2. Twenty-nine percent of neonatal-onset vs 69% of infancy/childhood-onset patients responded to diazoxide and diet or to a carbohydrate-enriched diet alone. Therefore, we observed a high rate of pancreatic surgery performed in the neonatal-onset group (70%) compared with the infancy/childhood-onset group (28%). Partial (3%), subtotal (37%) or near total (15%) pancreatectomy was performed. After pancreatic surgery there appeared a high risk of persistent hypoglycemia (40%). Immediately post-surgery or with a latency of several years insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus was observed in operated patients (27%). General outcome was poor with a high degree of psychomotor or mental retardation (44%) or epilepsy (25%). An unfavorable outcome correlated with infancy-onset manifestation (chi(2) = 6.1, P = 0.01). Conclusions: The high degree of developmental delay, in particular in infancy-onset patients emphasizes the need for a change in treatment strategies to improve the unfavorable outcome. Evaluation of treatment alternatives should take the high risk of developing diabetes mellitus into account.

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