Ammar Sarwar1, Olga R Brook2, Anand Vaidya2, Ari C Sacks3, Barry A Sacks4, S Nahum Goldberg4, Muneeb Ahmed4, Salomao Faintuch4. 1. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, WCC 308-B, 1 Deaconess Road, Boston, MA 02215. Electronic address: asarwar@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Medicine Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, WCC 308-B, 1 Deaconess Road, Boston, MA 02215.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare adrenal radiofrequency (RF) ablation with adrenalectomy in treating unilateral aldosterone-producing adenoma (APA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2008 and September 2013, 44 patients with adrenal venous sampling-confirmed (lateralization index ≥ 4) unilateral APA underwent adrenal RF ablation (12/44 [27%]) or adrenalectomy (32/44 [73%]). Outcomes of adrenal RF ablation (patient age, 51 y ± 11; 4/12 men) were compared with adrenalectomy (patient age, 50 y ± 11; 19/32 men). Blood pressure (145/94 mm Hg ± 19/13 vs 144/89 mm Hg ± 10/8, P = .92), number of antihypertensives (3.0 ± 1.3 vs 2.7 ± 0.89, P = .38), and serum potassium (3.2 mEq/L ± 0.6 vs 3.5 mEq/L ± 0.6, P = .65) of patients were similar before treatment. RESULTS: RF ablation and adrenalectomy resulted in normokalemia (RF ablation, 4.2 mEq/L ± 0.1, P = .0004; adrenalectomy, 4.3 mEq/L ± 0.6, P < .0001) and normotension (RF ablation, 129/81 mm Hg ± 11/11, P = .02/P = .001; adrenalectomy, 128/85 mm Hg ± 13/12, P < .0001/P = .07) in all patients. Proportions of RF ablation and adrenalectomy patients cured of hypertension (2/12 [17%] vs 12/32 [38%], P = .28) or requiring fewer antihypertensives (7/12 [58%] vs 13/32 [40%], P = .29) were similar. RF ablation patients had a shorter length of stay (0.6 d ± 0.8 [range, 0-2 d] vs 1.7 d ± 1.4 [range, 0-7 d]; P = .01) and less intraoperative blood loss (1.2 mL ± 3 vs 40 mL ±85; P = .01). Procedural complications occurred in 5/32 (15%) adrenalectomy patients (2 major, 3 minor) and in 0/12 RF ablation patients. CONCLUSIONS: RF ablation to treat APA can achieve similar clinical outcomes as adrenalectomy and results in shorter hospital stays. Larger, prospective trials are needed to validate these results.
PURPOSE: To compare adrenal radiofrequency (RF) ablation with adrenalectomy in treating unilateral aldosterone-producing adenoma (APA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2008 and September 2013, 44 patients with adrenal venous sampling-confirmed (lateralization index ≥ 4) unilateral APA underwent adrenal RF ablation (12/44 [27%]) or adrenalectomy (32/44 [73%]). Outcomes of adrenal RF ablation (patient age, 51 y ± 11; 4/12 men) were compared with adrenalectomy (patient age, 50 y ± 11; 19/32 men). Blood pressure (145/94 mm Hg ± 19/13 vs 144/89 mm Hg ± 10/8, P = .92), number of antihypertensives (3.0 ± 1.3 vs 2.7 ± 0.89, P = .38), and serum potassium (3.2 mEq/L ± 0.6 vs 3.5 mEq/L ± 0.6, P = .65) of patients were similar before treatment. RESULTS: RF ablation and adrenalectomy resulted in normokalemia (RF ablation, 4.2 mEq/L ± 0.1, P = .0004; adrenalectomy, 4.3 mEq/L ± 0.6, P < .0001) and normotension (RF ablation, 129/81 mm Hg ± 11/11, P = .02/P = .001; adrenalectomy, 128/85 mm Hg ± 13/12, P < .0001/P = .07) in all patients. Proportions of RF ablation and adrenalectomy patients cured of hypertension (2/12 [17%] vs 12/32 [38%], P = .28) or requiring fewer antihypertensives (7/12 [58%] vs 13/32 [40%], P = .29) were similar. RF ablation patients had a shorter length of stay (0.6 d ± 0.8 [range, 0-2 d] vs 1.7 d ± 1.4 [range, 0-7 d]; P = .01) and less intraoperative blood loss (1.2 mL ± 3 vs 40 mL ±85; P = .01). Procedural complications occurred in 5/32 (15%) adrenalectomy patients (2 major, 3 minor) and in 0/12 RF ablation patients. CONCLUSIONS: RF ablation to treat APA can achieve similar clinical outcomes as adrenalectomy and results in shorter hospital stays. Larger, prospective trials are needed to validate these results.
Authors: Paul Meria; Béatrice Fiquet Kempf; Jean François Hermieu; Pierre François Plouin; Jean Marc Duclos Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Muneeb Ahmed; Luigi Solbiati; Christopher L Brace; David J Breen; Matthew R Callstrom; J William Charboneau; Min-Hua Chen; Byung Ihn Choi; Thierry de Baère; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; David Gianfelice; Alice R Gillams; Fred T Lee; Edward Leen; Riccardo Lencioni; Peter J Littrup; Tito Livraghi; David S Lu; John P McGahan; Maria Franca Meloni; Boris Nikolic; Philippe L Pereira; Ping Liang; Hyunchul Rhim; Steven C Rose; Riad Salem; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Michael C Soulen; Masatoshi Tanaka; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Martin K Walz; Klaus Peitgen; Daniela Diesing; Stephan Petersenn; Onno E Janssen; Thomas Philipp; Klaus A Metz; Klaus Mann; Kurt W Schmid; Hartmut P H Neumann Journal: World J Surg Date: 2004-11-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Aradhana M Venkatesan; Julia Locklin; Edwin W Lai; Karen T Adams; Antonio Tito Fojo; Karel Pacak; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Tony C Pang; Chris Bambach; Judith C Monaghan; Stan B Sidhu; Alex Bune; Leigh W Delbridge; Mark S Sywak Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.872