4.7 Article

Impact of Different Diagnostic Criteria During Adrenal Vein Sampling on Reproducibility of Subtype Diagnosis in Patients With Primary Aldosteronism

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 667-673

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.146613

关键词

endocrine hypertension; primary aldosteronism; aldosterone; aldosterone-producing adenoma; bilateral adrenal hyperplasia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with primary aldosteronism, adrenal vein sampling (AVS) is considered the only reliable technique to distinguish between unilateral and bilateral autonomous production of aldosterone, but agreement is lacking on the best criteria indicating successful cannulation and lateralization. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of differing criteria for the successful cannulation and lateralization on the reproducibility of subtype diagnosis. Sixty-two patients with confirmed primary aldosteronism underwent AVS on 2 separate occasions, because the first was unsatisfactory. We compared the different diagnoses of primary aldosteronism subtype reached using AVS data assessed by permissive (type 1), intermediate (type 2), and strict (type 3) criteria. Although 91.1% of all of the (both first and second) AVSs were successful by type 1 criteria (50.8% by type 2 and 33.9% by type 3), in only 35.3% of patients was the diagnosis concordant between the first and second AVS. Type 1 criteria also led to a higher rate of diagnosis of unilateral primary aldosteronism (67.3% of successful procedures) than type 2 (36.5%) or type 3 (26.2%). There was considerable disparity in the diagnosis reached using the 3 different criteria, with concordance in only 32.2%. Using either type 1 or 2 criteria, the minimal adrenal/peripheral vein cortisol ratio necessary to obtain the same diagnosis in the first and second AVS procedures was >= 2.75. In conclusion, permissive criteria for successful cannulation and lateralization on AVS achieve poor diagnostic reproducibility and should be avoided. (Hypertension. 2010; 55: 667-673.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据