; for the International CONNsortium study group IMPORTANCE In addition to biochemical cure, clinical benefits after surgery for primary aldosteronism depend on the magnitude of decrease in blood pressure (BP) and use of antihypertensive medications with a subsequent decreased risk of cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular morbidity and drug-induced adverse effects. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the change in BP and use of antihypertensive medications within an international cohort of patients who recently underwent surgery for primary aldosteronism. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cohort study was conducted across 16 referral medical centers in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Patients who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy for primary aldosteronism between January 2010 and December 2016 were included. Data analysis was performed from August 2017 to June 2018. Unilateral disease was confirmed using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or adrenal venous sampling. Patients with missing or incomplete preoperative or follow-up data regarding BP or corresponding number of antihypertensive medications were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Clinical success was defined based on postoperative BP and number of antihypertensive medications. Cure was defined as normotension without antihypertensive medications, and clear improvement as normotension with lower or equal use of antihypertensive medications. In patients with preoperative normotensivity, improvement was defined as postoperative normotension with lower antihypertensive use. All other patients were stratified as no clear success because the benefits of surgery were less obvious, mainly owing to postoperative, persistent hypertension. Clinical outcomes were assessed at follow-up closest to 6 months after surgery. RESULTS On the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 435 patients (84.6%) from a cohort of 514 patients who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy were eligible. Of these patients, 186 (42.3%) were women; mean (SD) age at the time of surgery was 50.7 (11.4) years. Cure was achieved in 118 patients (27.1%), clear improvement in 135 (31.0%), and no clear success in 182 (41.8%). In the subgroup classified as no clear success, 166 patients (91.2%) had postoperative hypertension. However, within this subgroup, the mean (SD) systolic and diastolic BP decreased significantly by 9 (22) mm Hg (P < .001) and 3 (15) mm Hg (P = .04), respectively. Also, the number of antihypertensive medications used decreased from 3 (range, 0-7) to 2 (range, 0-6) (P < .001). Moreover, in 75 of 182 patients (41.2%) within this subgroup, the decrease in systolic BP was 10 mm Hg or greater. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, for most patients, adrenalectomy was associated with a postoperative normotensive state and reduction of antihypertensive medications. Furthermore, a significant proportion of patients with postoperative, persistent hypertension may benefit from adrenalectomy given the observed clinically relevant and significant redu...

No abstract

Futility has been a contentious topic in medicine for several decades. Surgery in critical or end-of-life situations often raises difficult questions about futility. In this article, we discuss the definition of futility, methods for resolving futility disputes, and some ways to reframe the futility debate to a more fruitful discussion about the goals of care, better communication between surgeon and patient/surrogate, and palliative surgical care. Many definitions of futile therapy have been discussed. The most controversial of these is “qualitative futility” which describes a situation in which the treatment provided is likely to result in an unacceptable quality of life. This is an area of continued controversy because it has been impossible to identify universally held beliefs about acceptable quality of life. Many authors have described methods for resolving futility disputes, including community standards and legalistic multi-step due process protocols. Others, however, have abandoned the concept of futility altogether as an unhelpful term. Reframing the issue of futility as one of inadequate physician–patient communication, these authors have advocated for methods of improving communication and strengthening the patient–physician relationship. Finally, we discuss the utilization of consultants who may be of use in resolving futility disputes: ethics committees, palliative care specialists, pastoral care teams, and dedicated patient advocates. Involving these specialists in a futility conflict can help improve communication and provide invaluable assistance in arriving at the appropriate treatment decision.

No abstract