BACKGROUND: Adrenal vein sampling (AVS) is considered the gold-standard test to demonstrate unilateral aldosterone excess in primary aldosteronism, yet no single approach to interpretation of AVS has been externally validated. HYPOTHESIS: There may be significant inter-observer variability in the final diagnosis of unilateral vs. bilateral aldosterone excess depending on which AVS interpretation rule is used. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 63 subjects with primary aldosteronism undergoing AVS and 40 subsequent adrenalectomies for presumed unilateral aldosteronism. The data from the AVS were retrospectively re-analyzed according to a variety of interpretation criteria published in the literature. Using 40 subjects undergoing surgery, pathology and clinical outcomes defined the final diagnosis of aldosteronism subtype, and these subjects' AVS results were used to estimate the true sensitivity and specificity of the various approaches to AVS interpretation. RESULTS: Diagnostic discrepancies exist between the different AVS interpretation rules. Successful adrenal vein catheterization was confirmed in between 13% and 77% of AVS attempts. Sensitivity of AVS ranged from 47% to 100% and specificity 55-100%. Only 17% of all cases would be categorized uniformly by all interpretation criteria. Use of biochemical catheter placement criteria and ACTH infusion improved the proportions of AVS results defined as successful and showing lateralization. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variabilty in final diagnosis by using different systems of interpreting AVS results as suggested in the literature This suggests AVS may not always be considered a gold-standard diagnostic test.
BACKGROUND: Adrenal vein sampling (AVS) is considered the gold-standard test to demonstrate unilateral aldosterone excess in primary aldosteronism, yet no single approach to interpretation of AVS has been externally validated. HYPOTHESIS: There may be significant inter-observer variability in the final diagnosis of unilateral vs. bilateral aldosterone excess depending on which AVS interpretation rule is used. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 63 subjects with primary aldosteronism undergoing AVS and 40 subsequent adrenalectomies for presumed unilateral aldosteronism. The data from the AVS were retrospectively re-analyzed according to a variety of interpretation criteria published in the literature. Using 40 subjects undergoing surgery, pathology and clinical outcomes defined the final diagnosis of aldosteronism subtype, and these subjects' AVS results were used to estimate the true sensitivity and specificity of the various approaches to AVS interpretation. RESULTS: Diagnostic discrepancies exist between the different AVS interpretation rules. Successful adrenal vein catheterization was confirmed in between 13% and 77% of AVS attempts. Sensitivity of AVS ranged from 47% to 100% and specificity 55-100%. Only 17% of all cases would be categorized uniformly by all interpretation criteria. Use of biochemical catheter placement criteria and ACTH infusion improved the proportions of AVS results defined as successful and showing lateralization. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variabilty in final diagnosis by using different systems of interpreting AVS results as suggested in the literature This suggests AVS may not always be considered a gold-standard diagnostic test.
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-02-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Gian Paolo Rossi; Chiara Ganzaroli; Diego Miotto; Renzo De Toni; Gaetana Palumbo; Gian Pietro Feltrin; Franco Mantero; Achille C Pessina Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: S B Magill; H Raff; J L Shaker; R C Brickner; T E Knechtges; M E Kehoe; J W Findling Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: William F Young; Anthony W Stanson; Geoffrey B Thompson; Clive S Grant; David R Farley; Jon A van Heerden Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: J L Phillips; M M Walther; J C Pezzullo; W Rayford; P L Choyke; A A Berman; W M Linehan; J L Doppman; J R Gill Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Fiemu E Nwariaku; Barbra S Miller; Richard Auchus; Shelby Holt; Lori Watumull; Bart Dolmatch; Shawna Nesbitt; Wanpen Vongpatanasin; Ronald Victor; Frank Wians; Edward Livingston; William H Snyder Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2006-05
Authors: Paolo Mulatero; Michael Stowasser; Keh-Chuan Loh; Carlos E Fardella; Richard D Gordon; Lorena Mosso; Celso E Gomez-Sanchez; Franco Veglio; William F Young Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Naris Nilubol; Steven J Soldin; Dhaval Patel; Muthoni Rwenji; Jianghong Gu; Likhona S Masika; Richard Chang; Constantine A Stratakis; Electron Kebebew Journal: Int J Endocr Oncol Date: 2017-04-27
Authors: Tracy S Wang; Greg Kline; Tina W Yen; Ziyan Yin; Ying Liu; William Rilling; Benny So; James W Findling; Douglas B Evans; Janice L Pasieka Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Richard Webb; Aarti Mathur; Richard Chang; Smita Baid; Naris Nilubol; Steven K Libutti; Constantine A Stratakis; Electron Kebebew Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Aarti Mathur; Clinton D Kemp; Utpal Dutta; Smita Baid; Alejandro Ayala; Richard E Chang; Seth M Steinberg; Vasilios Papademetriou; Eileen Lange; Steven K Libutti; James F Pingpank; H Richard Alexander; Giao Q Phan; Marybeth Hughes; W Marston Linehan; Peter A Pinto; Constantine A Stratakis; Electron Kebebew Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 6.113