Suppr超能文献

肾上腺静脉采血可能并非原发性醛固酮增多症的金标准诊断测试:最终诊断取决于所使用的解读规则。肾上腺静脉采血的解读存在差异。

Adrenal vein sampling may not be a gold-standard diagnostic test in primary aldosteronism: final diagnosis depends upon which interpretation rule is used. Variable interpretation of adrenal vein sampling.

作者信息

Kline Gregory A, Harvey Adrian, Jones Charlotte, Hill Michael H, So Benny, Scott-Douglas Nairne, Pasieka Janice L

机构信息

Division of Endocrinology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, T2N 4J8.

出版信息

Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(4):1035-43. doi: 10.1007/s11255-008-9441-9. Epub 2008 Aug 12.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

肾上腺静脉采血(AVS)被认为是证明原发性醛固酮增多症中单侧醛固酮分泌过多的金标准检测方法,但尚未有单一的AVS解读方法得到外部验证。

假设

根据所使用的AVS解读规则,在单侧与双侧醛固酮分泌过多的最终诊断中,观察者之间可能存在显著差异。

方法

对63例接受AVS的原发性醛固酮增多症患者和40例随后因疑似单侧醛固酮增多症接受肾上腺切除术的患者进行回顾性病历审查。根据文献中发表的各种解读标准,对AVS数据进行回顾性重新分析。以40例接受手术的患者为例,病理和临床结果确定了醛固酮增多症亚型的最终诊断,并将这些患者的AVS结果用于估计各种AVS解读方法的真正敏感性和特异性。

结果

不同的AVS解读规则之间存在诊断差异。在13%至77%的AVS尝试中确认成功进行了肾上腺静脉插管。AVS的敏感性范围为47%至100%,特异性为55%至100%。所有病例中只有17%会被所有解读标准统一分类。使用生化导管放置标准和促肾上腺皮质激素输注可提高定义为成功和显示侧化的AVS结果的比例。

结论

正如文献中所建议的,我们发现使用不同的AVS结果解读系统进行最终诊断存在很大差异。这表明AVS可能并不总是被视为金标准诊断测试。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验