4.6 Article

Are Guidelines for Glucocorticoid Coverage in Adrenal Insufficiency Currently Followed?

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 158, 期 3, 页码 492-U178

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.08.021

关键词

-

资金

  1. Belgian Study Group of Pediatric Endocrinology
  2. Fonds de Recherche en Sante du Quebec
  3. Group Cossette Communications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To search for evidence of acute adrenal failure linked to inappropriate use of stress management protocols. Study design Patients followed up for primary adrenal insufficiency (n = 102) or secondary adrenal insufficiency (n = 34) between 1973 and 2007 were included. All hospitalizations, both urgent (n = 157) and elective (n = 90), were examined. We recorded clinical evidence of acute adrenal failure, parental management before admission, and details of glucocorticoid prescription and administration in the hospital setting. Results For urgent hospitalizations, subgroup and time period did not influence the percentage of patients hospitalized (primary adrenal insufficiency 45%; secondary adrenal insufficiency 38%; P = .55). The use of stress glucocorticoid doses by parents increased significantly after 1997 (P < .05), although still only 47% increased glucocorticoids before hospitalization. Stress doses were more frequently administered on arrival in our emergency department after 1990 (P < .05); patients with signs or symptoms of acute adrenal failure decreased to 27% after 1997 (P < .01). Twenty-four percent of all hospitalizations were marked by suboptimal adherence to glucocorticoid stress protocols, with rare but significant clinical consequences. Conclusions In spite of an increased use of glucocorticoid stress dose protocols by parents and physicians, patients remain at risk of morbidity and death from acute adrenal failure. This risk may be minimized with conscientious application of stress protocols, but other patient-specific risk factors may also be implicated. (J Pediatr 2011;158:492-8).

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