Journal of surgical oncology · 2015
Reversing the established order: Should adrenal venous sampling precede cross-sectional imaging in the evaluation of primary aldosteronism?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Asmar Melissa, Wachtel Heather, Yan Yan, Fraker Douglas L, Cohen Debbie, Trerotola Scott O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Adrenal venous sampling (AVS) is the definitive evaluation for primary aldosteronism (PA). Pre-AVS cross-sectional imaging does not reduce the need for AVS. The goal of this study was to examine whether performing AVS prior to imaging could decrease the use of imaging in the evaluation of PA at a high volume, experienced center.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all AVS procedures (n = 337) done for PA from 2001-2013. Patients whose cross-sectional imaging reports were unavailable (n = 90) or AVS was non-diagnostic (n = 12) were excluded. AVS was performed using modified Mayo technique. Univariate analysis utilized the χ² test and fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: Of the 235 patients analyzed, 63% (n = 148) were male. The mean age was 55 ± 11 years. AVS was non-lateralizing in 43% (n = 101); these patients might have avoided imaging with an AVS-first approach. Imaging and AVS were concordant in 52% (n = 123). In patients ≤40yo (n = 23), 35% (n = 8) had no lateralization on AVS, and might have avoided imaging in an AVS-first approach. Imaging and AVS were concordant in 52% (n = 12) of patients ≤ 40yo, versus 52% (n = 111) of patients > 40 yo (P = 0.987).
CONCLUSION: An AVS-first, imaging-second approach could have avoided CT/MRI in 43% of patients. At a high volume, experienced center, performing AVS first on patients with PA may reduce unnecessary cross-sectional imaging studies.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all AVS procedures (n = 337) done for PA from 2001-2013. Patients whose cross-sectional imaging reports were unavailable (n = 90) or AVS was non-diagnostic (n = 12) were excluded. AVS was performed using modified Mayo technique. Univariate analysis utilized the χ² test and fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: Of the 235 patients analyzed, 63% (n = 148) were male. The mean age was 55 ± 11 years. AVS was non-lateralizing in 43% (n = 101); these patients might have avoided imaging with an AVS-first approach. Imaging and AVS were concordant in 52% (n = 123). In patients ≤40yo (n = 23), 35% (n = 8) had no lateralization on AVS, and might have avoided imaging in an AVS-first approach. Imaging and AVS were concordant in 52% (n = 12) of patients ≤ 40yo, versus 52% (n = 111) of patients > 40 yo (P = 0.987).
CONCLUSION: An AVS-first, imaging-second approach could have avoided CT/MRI in 43% of patients. At a high volume, experienced center, performing AVS first on patients with PA may reduce unnecessary cross-sectional imaging studies.