4.3 Article

Primary aldosteronism subtyping in the setting of partially successful adrenal vein sampling

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2042018821989239

关键词

adrenal vein sampling; lateralization index; primary aldosteronism; subclinical hypercortisolism

资金

  1. Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea [2019IP0862]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AV/IVC index may assist in diagnosing PA subtype in the case of unilateral AVS failure according to the study findings.
Background and aims: Frequent failure of adrenal vein (AV) cannulation is a major obstacle to the universal use of adrenal vein sampling (AVS) for subtyping primary aldosteronism (PA). This study aimed to confirm and modify the value of a previously reported AVS parameter for PA subtyping in the case of cannulation failure on one side. Methods: Successfully catheterized AVS studies in 157 patients (121 patients as a derivation cohort and 36 patients as a validation cohort) from two tertiary hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. The AV/inferior vena cava (IVC) index was defined by dividing the aldosterone/cortisol ratio (ACR) of AV by the ACR of the IVC. Cutoff values for lateralized PA were obtained from two methods: scatterplots and the values corresponding to Youden's index in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, on the assumption of catheterization failure on one side. Results: Due to multiple samplings in a single AVS procedure, 252 left AV/IVC ratios (LIRs) and 272 right AV/IVC ratios (RIRs) were calculated. Scatterplot cutoffs of LIR >5.4 or Scatterplot cutoffs of RIR 7.0 showed a sensitivity of 55.1% and a specificity of 98.6%. ROC curve cutoffs of LIR <= 0.8 or >3.1 predicted unilateral PA with a sensitivity of 82.5% and a specificity of 69.6%. ROC curve cutoffs of RIR <= 0.8 or >3.9 resulted in 87.4% sensitivity and 80.7% specificity. Conclusion: In the case of unilateral AVS failure, the AV/IVC index may help in diagnosing PA subtype.

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

4.3
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