Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2014
Pituitary apoplexy in nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas: a case-control study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vargas Guadalupe, Gonzalez Baldomero, Guinto Gerardo, Mendoza Victoria, López-Félix Blas, Zepeda Erick, Mercado Moisés
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Pituitary apoplexy (PA) is an endocrinologic emergency characterized by headache, visual abnormalities, and hemodynamic instability in the context of hemorragic infarction of a pituitary adenoma. Our goal was to estimate the incidence, precipitating factors, clinical characteristics, and outcome of PA in a cohort of patients with nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas (NFPMAs).
METHODS: A retrospective, case-control study of 46 patients with PA and 47 controls matched for age, gender, and tumor invasiveness. Clinical, hormonal, and tumoral charactersitics, as well as the presence of potential precipitating factors and long-term outcome were evaluated using both bivariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: The prevalence of PA was 8%. Cases and controls were similar in regards to the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, use of antiplatelet agents, and the presence of headaches and visual field defects. Oculomotor paralysis was present in 18% of cases and in none of the controls (P = .001). Prior use of dopamine agonists was significantly more frequent among cases than in controls on both bivariate and multivariate analysis. Pituitary hormone deficiencies were more common among cases than in controls on bivariate but not on multivariate analysis. Early and late surgical treatment was carried out in 11 and 25 patients, respectively; 11 patients were managed conservatively. Visual and endocrine outcomes were similar among the 3 groups.
CONCLUSION: PA represents a life-threatening medical emergency. Prior use of dopamine agonists and the presence of oculomotor abnormalities clearly distinguished patients with NFPMA who developed PA from those who did not.
METHODS: A retrospective, case-control study of 46 patients with PA and 47 controls matched for age, gender, and tumor invasiveness. Clinical, hormonal, and tumoral charactersitics, as well as the presence of potential precipitating factors and long-term outcome were evaluated using both bivariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: The prevalence of PA was 8%. Cases and controls were similar in regards to the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, use of antiplatelet agents, and the presence of headaches and visual field defects. Oculomotor paralysis was present in 18% of cases and in none of the controls (P = .001). Prior use of dopamine agonists was significantly more frequent among cases than in controls on both bivariate and multivariate analysis. Pituitary hormone deficiencies were more common among cases than in controls on bivariate but not on multivariate analysis. Early and late surgical treatment was carried out in 11 and 25 patients, respectively; 11 patients were managed conservatively. Visual and endocrine outcomes were similar among the 3 groups.
CONCLUSION: PA represents a life-threatening medical emergency. Prior use of dopamine agonists and the presence of oculomotor abnormalities clearly distinguished patients with NFPMA who developed PA from those who did not.