Published in

Oxford University Press, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2(109), p. e837-e855, 2023

DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgad451

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Predicting Bilateral Subtypes of Primary Aldosteronism Without Adrenal Vein Sampling: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal article published in 2023 by Elisabeth Ng ORCID, Stella May Gwini, Winston Zheng, Peter J. Fuller, Jun Yang ORCID
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Orange circle
Published version: archiving restricted
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Context Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common endocrine cause of hypertension. The final diagnostic step involves subtyping, using adrenal vein sampling (AVS), to determine if PA is unilateral or bilateral. The complete PA diagnostic process is time and resource intensive, which can impact rates of diagnosis and treatment. Previous studies have developed tools to predict bilateral PA before AVS. Objective Evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of published tools that aim to identify bilateral subtypes of PA. Methods Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify published models that sought to subtype PA, and algorithms to predict bilateral PA are reported. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were then performed. Results There were 35 studies included, evaluating 55 unique algorithms to predict bilateral PA. The algorithms were grouped into 6 categories: those combining biochemical, radiological, and demographic characteristics (A); confirmatory testing alone or combined with biochemical, radiological, and demographic characteristics (B); biochemistry results alone (C); adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation testing (D); anatomical imaging (E); and functional imaging (F). Across the identified algorithms, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 5% to 100% and 36% to 100%, respectively. Meta-analysis of 30 unique predictive tools from 32 studies showed that the group A algorithms had the highest specificity for predicting bilateral PA, while group F had the highest sensitivity. Conclusions Despite the variability in published predictive algorithms, they are likely important for decision-making regarding the value of AVS. Prospective validation may enable medical treatment upfront for people with a high likelihood of bilateral PA without the need for an invasive and resource-intensive test.