Peiman Habibollahi1, Benjamin Shin1, Sara P Shamchi2, Heather Wachtel3, Douglas L Fraker4, Scott O Trerotola5. 1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Division of Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. streroto@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parathyroid venous sampling (PAVS) is usually reserved for patients with persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism after parathyroidectomy with inconclusive noninvasive imaging studies. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of super-selective PAVS (SSVS) in patients needing revision neck surgery with inconclusive imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing PAVS between 2005 and 2016 due to persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism following surgery were reviewed. PAVS was performed in all patients using super-selective technique. Single-value measurements within central neck veins performed as part of super-selective PAVS were used to simulate selective venous sampling (SVS) and allow for comparison to data, which might be obtained in a non-super-selective approach. RESULTS: 32 patients (mean age 51 ± 15 years; 8 men and 24 women) met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of SSVS for localizing the source of elevated PTH to a limited area in the neck or chest was 96 and 84%, respectively. Simulated SVS, on the other hand, had a sensitivity of 28% and a PPV of 89% based on the predefined gold standard. SSVS had a significantly higher sensitivity compared to simulated SVS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SSVS is highly effective in localizing the source of hyperparathyroidism in patients undergoing revision surgery for hyperparathyroidism in whom noninvasive imaging studies are inconclusive. SSVS data had also markedly higher sensitivity for localizing disease in these patients compared to simulated SVS.
PURPOSE: Parathyroid venous sampling (PAVS) is usually reserved for patients with persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism after parathyroidectomy with inconclusive noninvasive imaging studies. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of super-selective PAVS (SSVS) in patients needing revision neck surgery with inconclusive imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients undergoing PAVS between 2005 and 2016 due to persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism following surgery were reviewed. PAVS was performed in all patients using super-selective technique. Single-value measurements within central neck veins performed as part of super-selective PAVS were used to simulate selective venous sampling (SVS) and allow for comparison to data, which might be obtained in a non-super-selective approach. RESULTS: 32 patients (mean age 51 ± 15 years; 8 men and 24 women) met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of SSVS for localizing the source of elevated PTH to a limited area in the neck or chest was 96 and 84%, respectively. Simulated SVS, on the other hand, had a sensitivity of 28% and a PPV of 89% based on the predefined gold standard. SSVS had a significantly higher sensitivity compared to simulated SVS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SSVS is highly effective in localizing the source of hyperparathyroidism in patients undergoing revision surgery for hyperparathyroidism in whom noninvasive imaging studies are inconclusive. SSVS data had also markedly higher sensitivity for localizing disease in these patients compared to simulated SVS.