From the Department of Endocrinology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (Y.S., S.Y., W.H., J.H., Q.C., Y.W., T.L., L.M., Q.Z., S.Z., M.M., Z.W., H.Q., Q.L.) and School of Public Health and Management, Chongqing Medical University (B.P.), China; and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Pittsburgh Heart, Lung, Blood, and Vascular Medicine Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA (D.B.).
Hypertension. 2018 Jan;71(1):118-124. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10197. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
The diagnosis of primary aldosteronism typically requires at least one confirmatory test. The fludrocortisone suppression test is generally accepted as a reliable confirmatory test, but it is cumbersome. Evidence from accuracy studies of the saline infusion test (SIT) and the captopril challenge test (CCT) has provided conflicting results. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the SIT and CCT using fludrocortisone suppression test as the reference standard. One hundred thirty-five patients diagnosed with primary aldosteronism and 101 patients diagnosed with essential hypertension who completed the 3 confirmatory tests were included for the diagnostic accuracy analysis. The areas under the receiver-operator characteristics curves of the CCT and SIT were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98), respectively, using post-test plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) for diagnosis. However, the areas under the receiver-operator characteristics curves of the CCT decreased to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.77) when the PAC suppression percentage was used to diagnose primary aldosteronism. The optimal cutoff of PAC post-CCT was set at 11 ng/dL, resulting in a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95) and a specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95), which were not significantly different from those of SIT (with PAC post-SIT set at 8 ng/dL, sensitivity: 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.91], =0.192; specificity: 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.97], =0.551). In conclusion, both CCT and SIT are accurate alternatives to the more complex fludrocortisone suppression test. Because CCT is safe and much easier to perform, it may serve as a more feasible alternative. When interpreting the results of CCT, PAC post-CCT is highly recommended.
原发性醛固酮增多症的诊断通常需要至少一项确证性检查。氟氢可的松抑制试验通常被认为是一种可靠的确证性试验,但该试验较为繁琐。盐水输注试验(SIT)和卡托普利挑战试验(CCT)准确性研究的证据提供了相互矛盾的结果。本前瞻性研究旨在评估 SIT 和 CCT 的诊断准确性,以氟氢可的松抑制试验作为参考标准。共纳入 135 例原发性醛固酮增多症患者和 101 例原发性高血压患者完成了 3 项确证性检查,用于诊断准确性分析。使用后血浆醛固酮浓度(PAC)进行诊断时,CCT 和 SIT 的受试者工作特征曲线下面积分别为 0.96(95%置信区间 [CI],0.92-0.98)和 0.96(95% CI,0.92-0.98)。然而,当使用 PAC 抑制率诊断原发性醛固酮增多症时,CCT 的受试者工作特征曲线下面积降至 0.71(95% CI,0.65-0.77)。CCT 后 PAC 的最佳截断值设定为 11 ng/dL,其敏感性为 0.90(95% CI,0.84-0.95),特异性为 0.90(95% CI,0.83-0.95),与 SIT 无显著差异(SIT 后 PAC 设定为 8 ng/dL,敏感性:0.85[95%CI,0.78-0.91],=0.192;特异性:0.92[95%CI,0.85-0.97],=0.551)。总之,CCT 和 SIT 都是更复杂的氟氢可的松抑制试验的准确替代方法。由于 CCT 安全且操作简单得多,因此可能是更可行的替代方法。在解释 CCT 结果时,强烈建议使用 CCT 后 PAC。