Cerebral aneurysm and acromegaly: a case report.

Section of Endocrinology, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Advanced Therapies, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Journal of endocrinological investigation (Impact Factor: 1.65). 10/2004; 27(8):770-3. DOI: 10.1007/BF03347521
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Few cases are reported concerning the association between cerebral aneurysms and acromegaly, and this is the first case report documenting an increase in diameter of a cerebral aneurysm in persistent acromegaly. Persistently elevated GH plasma levels might promote an increase in diameter of cerebral aneurysms. An accurate follow-up in acromegalic patients is important, especially concerning the cerebrovascular system. Establishing the effectiveness and usefulness of this strategy will require future prospective studies.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence of cerebral aneurysm was retrospectively investigated in 208 patients with acromegaly relative to the rate of cerebral aneurysm in a group of control subjects. Neuroradiological examinations of the cerebral vascular system were conducted in 208 acromegaly patients (101 men; mean age, 48.8 years). The prevalence of cerebral aneurysm in the acromegaly patients was compared to that in a control group consisting of 7,390 subjects who underwent "brain checkup" between 2006 and 2008 (mean age, 51.6 years). In the acromegaly group, cerebral aneurysm was detected in 4.3 % of patients. By sex, the prevalence was 6.9 % in males, a significantly proportion than that in the control group with an odds ratio of 4.40. The prevalence in females did not differ between the two groups. In the acromegaly group, the rate of hypertension was significantly higher in the patients with aneurysm compared to those without aneurysm. Multiple logistic regression identified acromegaly as a significant factor related to the prevalence of cerebral aneurysm in all male subjects; other factors, such as age, hypertension and smoking, were not found to be significant. A significantly higher prevalence of cerebral aneurysm was detected in male patients with acromegaly. This finding indicates that excess growth hormone or insulin-like growth factor 1 affects the cerebral vascular wall, resulting in aneurysm formation. In addition to known systematic complications in the cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic, and other systems, the risk of cerebral aneurysm should be considered in the management of acromegaly.
    Pituitary 07/2012; · 2.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coexistence of brain tumor and intracranial aneurysm was previously considered as an uncommon phenomenon. Actually it is not rare in neurosurgical procedures, and its incidence rate may be underestimated. Furthermore, there remains a lack of consensus regarding numerous aspects of its clinical management. We performed a retrospective study of 12 cases of coexistent brain tumor and intracranial aneurysm in our database. Then a systematic PubMed search of English-language literature published between 1970 and 2012 was carried out using the keywords: "brain tumor" and "intracranial aneurysm" in combination with "associate" or "coexist." A consensus panel of neurosurgeons, anesthetists, interventional neurologists, and intensivests reviewed this information and proposed a treatment strategy. In the majority of patients, clinical symptoms were caused by tumor growth, whereas aneurysm rupture was seen only in a few cases. Meningioma was the commonest tumor associated with aneurysm. In most patients, both lesions occurred within the adjacent area. Treatment of both pathologies in one session was performed in most patients. All of our patients were alive within the period of follow-up. Coexistence of brain tumor and intracranial aneurysm may be a coincidence. The treatment strategy should be designed according to the conditions of tumor and aneurysm, locations of both lesions, and pathologic nature of tumor.
    Neurosurgical Review 05/2013; · 1.97 Impact Factor
  • Clinical Dysmorphology 11/2008; 17(4):283-5. · 0.38 Impact Factor