Background: Adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma, a rare catecholamine-secreting tumour, is a challenging procedure because of the high risk of intraoperative hemodynamic instability, which can cause life-threatening complications. Our study aimed to identify predictive factors for hemodynamic instability during pheochromocytoma resection as well as to assess the risk factors for postoperative morbidity.Methods: Data of 96 patients, who underwent laparoscopic adrenalectomy were analysed retrospectively.Hemodynamic instability was defined as an occurrence of both intraoperative episodes of systolic blood pressure above 160 mmHg and vasoactive (vasodilators or vasoconstrictors) drug administration. Patients were divided into two groups: one which met both criteria, and another one without hemodynamic instability-42 (43.8%) and 54 (56.2%) respectively.Results: The mean tumour size was 4.5±2.0 cm. 86 patients had a sporadic pheochromocytoma and 10 (10.4%) had a familial disease. 63 patients were preoperatively treated with nonselective blockers and 33 patients with selective blockers. Mean operative time was 98.7±41.7 min. and mean intraoperative blood loss was 165.7±381.2 mL. In 26% of patients, postoperative complications occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 3 days. The multivariate logistic regression model showed that the size of adrenal tumour and diabetes were significant factors of hemodynamic instability. Intraoperative use of vasopressors was an independent risk factor for both all-cause and cardiovascular morbidity.Conclusions: Adrenal tumour size and diabetes were associated with hemodynamic instability during pheochromocytoma resection. The only risk factor for complications in our group was intraoperative necessity to use vasopressors.

Objective: Alpha-adrenergic blockade is currently the first choice of preoperative treatment in patients with functional pheochromocytoma and sympathetic paraganglioma. Nevertheless, there is no consensus whether selective or non-selective alpha-blockade is superior for preventing both perioperative hemodynamic instability and complications. Design: Our study aimed to compare selective and non-selective alpha-blockade through a systematic review with meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Randomized and observational studies comparing selective and non-selective alpha-blockade in pheochromocytoma and sympathetic paraganglioma surgery in adults were included. Data on perioperative hemodynamic parameters and postoperative outcomes were extracted. Results: Eleven studies with 1,344 patients were enrolled. Patients receiving selective alpha-blockade had higher maximum intraoperative systolic blood pressure (WMD 12.14 mm Hg, 95% CI 6.06-18.21, p<0.0001) compared to those treated with non-selective alpha-blockade. Additionally, in the group pretreated with selective alpha-blockers, intraoperative vasodilators were used more frequently (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.44-4.20, p=0.001). Patients treated with selective alpha-blockers had lower minimum intraoperative systolic blood pressure (WMD -2.03 mmHg, 95% CI -4.06 to -0.01, p=0.05) and shorter length of hospital stay (WMD -0.58 days, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.04, p=0.04). Operative time, overall morbidity and mortality did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows non-selective alpha-blockade was more effective in preventing intraoperative blood pressure fluctuations while maintaining comparable risk of both intraoperative and postoperative hypotension and overall morbidity.

Perioperative care and follow-up after bariatric surgery (BS) engage various medical professionals. It is key for them to be well informed about these procedures. However, knowledge and attitudes may be not satisfactory enough to provide proper care. We aimed to assess knowledge and perceptions of BS among diabetologists and internists. A total of 34 diabetologists and 30 internists completed the electronic questionnaire. There were no differences in self-estimated knowledge between them, except regarding items related to the treatment of diabetes and metabolic control. Several misconceptions were identified in the questions testing the understanding of key issues in BS. Most participants considered BS effective in weight loss and metabolic control. A total of 75% highlighted the lack of appropriate equipment for dealing with morbidly obese patients. Interestingly, in a multivariable linear regression model, self-estimated knowledge was the only variable associated with frequency of referrals to bariatric surgeons. A total of 92% of respondents were interested in broadening their knowledge. Guidelines for long-term follow-up and funding were the most frequently chosen topics to explore. The study showed a positive attitude of diabetologists and internists towards surgical treatment of obesity and identified some significant gaps in knowledge. The results may be helpful in planning trainings to provide the best care for patients suffering from morbid obesity.

No abstract

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is the most prevalent cardiomyopathy, typified by left ventricular dilation and systolic dysfunction. Many patients with DCM have altered thyroid status, especially lower levels of free triiodothyronine (T3) and elevated levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone. Moreover, growing evidence indicates that even subtle changes in thyroid status (especially low T3) are linked with a worse long-term prognosis and a higher risk of mortality. Notably, recent discoveries have shown that not only local myocardial thyroid hormones (THs) bioavailability could be diminished due to impaired expression of the activating deiodinase, but virtually all genes involved in TH biosynthesis are also expressed in the myocardium of DCM patients. Importantly, some studies have suggested beneficial effects of TH therapy in patients suffering from DCM. Our aim was to discuss new insights into the association between TH status and prognosis in DCM, abnormal expression of genes involved in the myocardial synthesis of TH in DCM, and the potential for TH use in the future treatment of DCM.

No abstract

BackgroundIn patients with bilateral pheochromocytoma, partial adrenalectomy offers the chance to preserve adrenal function and avoid the need for lifelong steroid supplementation. However, the risk of tumour recurrence raises questions about this procedure. The aim of our study was to compare partial and total adrenalectomy in bilateral pheochromocytoma through a systematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search was carried out using databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL) and registers of clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov, European Trials Register, WHO International Trials Registry Platform). This meta-analysis included studies up to July 2022 without language restrictions. A random effects model meta-analysis was performed to assess the risk of tumor recurrence, steroid dependence and morbidity in these patients.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in the analysis involving 1444 patients. The relative risk (RR) of loss of adrenal hormone function during follow-up and the need for steroid therapy was 0.32 in patients after partial adrenalectomy: RR 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.26-0.38, P &lt; 0.00001, I2 = 21%. Patients undergoing partial adrenalectomy had a lower odds ratio (OR) for developing acute adrenal crisis: OR 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.91, P=0.03, I2 = 0%. Partial adrenalectomy was associated with a higher risk of recurrence than total adrenalectomy: OR 3.72, 95% CI: 1.54-8.96, P=0.003, I2 = 28%.ConclusionPartial adrenalectomy for bilateral pheochromocytoma is a treatment that offers a chance of preserving adrenal hormonal function, but is associated with a higher risk of local tumor recurrence. There was no difference for the risk of metastasis and in overall mortality among the group with bilateral pheochromocytomas undergoing total or partial adrenalectomy. This study is in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) Guidelines (10, 11).Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/zx3se.

No abstract