4.7 Article

Comparison of Seated With Recumbent Saline Suppression Testing for the Diagnosis of Primary Aldosteronism

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 103, 期 11, 页码 4113-4124

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2018-01394

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1082076]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Failure of plasma aldosterone suppression during fludrocortisone suppression testing (FST) or saline suppression testing (SST) confirms primary aldosteronism (PA). Aldosterone is often higher upright than recumbent in PA; upright levels are used during FST. In a pilot study (24 patients with PA), seated saline suppression testing (SSST) was more sensitive than recumbent saline suppression testing (RSST). Objective, Design, and Patients: The current validation study involved 100 patients who underwent FST, RSST, and SSST, eight before and after unilateral adrenalectomy. Of the 108 FSTs, 73 confirmed and 18 excluded PA. Four patients with inconclusive FST lateralized on adrenal venous sampling, making a total of 77 with PA. Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was greater for SSST than RSST (0.96 vs. 0.80; P < 0.01). ROC analysis predicted optimal cutoff aldosterone levels of 162 pmol/L for SSST and 106 pmol/L for RSST. At these cutoffs, SSST showed high sensitivity for PA (87%) that markedly exceeded that for RSST (38%; P < 0.001) but similar specificity (94 vs. 94%; not significant). SSST was more sensitive than RSST in detecting both unilateral (n = 28, 93% vs. 68%, P < 0.05) and bilateral (n = 40, 85% vs. 20%, P < 0.001) forms of PA. Only three SSST (vs. 9 RSST and 17 FST) results were inconclusive. Conclusions: SSST is highly sensitive and superior to RSST in identifying both unilateral and bilateral forms of PA and has a low rate of false positives and inconclusive results. It therefore offers a reliable and much less complicated and expensive alternative to FST for confirming PA.

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