Hudson Institute and Monash University, Clayton 3800, Victoria, Australia.
Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2022 May;32(4):228-233. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2021.03.005. Epub 2021 Mar 26.
In 1955 Dr Jerome Conn first documented primary aldosteronism (PA). Since then, screening, diagnosis and treatment have developed, in the process both refining and complicating management. Currently, screening requires 4-6 weeks of lead-up, including major changes in antihypertensive therapy, followed by a blood draw for plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) and plasma renin activity (PRA) or concentration (PRC). Screening is considered indicative of PA on the basis of the PAC and the aldosterone to renin ratio (ARR). This is then followed by one or more of 6 confirmatory/exclusion tests. Three things have changed. First is now incontrovertible evidence that a single spot PAC is a deeply flawed index of true aldosterone status, so that many referred patients with PA fall at the first hurdle. A valid index of aldosterone status is an integrated value, measured as urinary aldosterone excretion (UEA) over 24 h. On the basis of the UEA, the prevalence of PA appears to be 3-5 times higher than the currently accepted figure of 5-10% of hypertensives. The second is the recognition that inadequately treated PA has a cardiovascular risk profile ~threefold that of matched essential hypertensives. Third is the realization that <1% of hypertensives are ever screened for PA, who are thus in double jeopardy for the risks of untreated PA on top of those for hypertension per se. Taken together, this a major if occult public health issue; if it is to be addressed, radical changes in management are needed. Some are in screening, which needs to be simply done on all newly-presenting hypertensives; others are major simplifications of screening in established hypertension. The front-line actors need to be Internists/Primary Care Providers; the costs will be significant, but much less than those of increased morbidity/premature mortality in unrecognized PA. Possible suggestions as to how best to address this constitute the final chapter of this article.
1955 年, Jerome Conn 博士首次记录了原发性醛固酮增多症(PA)。从那时起,筛查、诊断和治疗得到了发展,在这个过程中,管理变得更加精细和复杂。目前,筛查需要 4-6 周的准备时间,包括对降压治疗进行重大改变,然后采集血样测量血浆醛固酮浓度(PAC)、血浆肾素活性(PRA)或浓度(PRC)。根据 PAC 和醛固酮与肾素比值(ARR),筛查被认为是 PA 的指征。然后进行一项或多项 6 项确认/排除试验。有三件事发生了变化。首先,现在有不可辩驳的证据表明,单一的 PAC 点是真正醛固酮状态的一个严重缺陷指标,因此许多患有 PA 的转诊患者在第一道门槛就失败了。醛固酮状态的有效指标是一个综合值,以 24 小时尿醛固酮排泄量(UEA)来衡量。根据 UEA,PA 的患病率似乎是目前接受的高血压患者中 5-10%的 3-5 倍。其次,人们认识到,治疗不足的 PA 的心血管风险特征是匹配的原发性高血压患者的三倍。第三是意识到,<1%的高血压患者接受过 PA 的筛查,因此,除了高血压本身的风险之外,他们还面临着未经治疗的 PA 的双重风险。总的来说,这是一个重大的、如果不是隐匿的公共卫生问题;如果要解决这个问题,就需要对管理进行彻底的改变。有些改变在筛查中,需要在所有新出现的高血压患者中简单地进行;另一些则是在已确诊的高血压患者中对筛查进行重大简化。一线演员需要是内科医生/初级保健提供者;成本将是巨大的,但远低于未被发现的 PA 患者发病率/过早死亡率增加的成本。本文的最后一章提出了如何最好地解决这个问题的建议。