Long-term follow-up and cost benefit of adrenalectomy in patients with primary hyperaldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of adrenalectomy on blood pressure control in patients with primary hyperaldosteronism (HA), and to analyse the cost of adrenalectomy compared with non-surgical management of HA over the patient's lifetime. METHODS: All patients who underwent an adrenalectomy for HA were recalled to the endocrine surgical clinic. Data gathered included blood pressure, aldosterone : renin ratios and medication. Total costs for adrenalectomy and ongoing medications were compared with the estimated costs of lifelong medical therapy alone. RESULTS: Twenty-four adrenalectomies were performed for HA, with one death. The mean follow-up was 42 (range 13-97) months. Long term, there was a significant decrease in both the mean diastolic and systolic blood pressure. The aldosterone : renin ratio decreased in 21 patients. Of these patients, 20 were either off all antihypertensives (eight) or had a reduction in medication (12). An increased aldosterone : renin ratio occurred in two patients, both of whom required an increase in antihypertensive medication. Using the predicted life expectancy, the mean estimated cost savings over the lifetime of each patient undergoing adrenalectomy compared with medication alone was Canadian $31 132. CONCLUSION: Adrenalectomy for HA resulted in significant long-term reduction in blood pressure. Adrenalectomy for HA is a significantly less expensive than long-term medical therapy alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".