ArticleBMC medical imaging2022
Cone-beam computed tomography is not a mandatory procedure in adrenal venous sampling for primary hyperaldosteronism.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Selective venous sampling for secondary hypertension.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the necessity of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in adrenal venous sampling (AVS).
methodsThis retrospective study included 120 consecutive patients with primary hyperaldosteronism who underwent AVS. Based on the learning curve of the interventional radiologists, the patients were divided into the learning (n = 36) and proficiency (n = 84) groups chronologically. Based on the imaging pattern of the right adrenal vein (RAV), the patients were divided into the typical (n = 36) and atypical (n = 84) groups. The success rate, radiation dose, and sampling time were compared among the entire study population and each subgroup.
resultsA total of 69 patients underwent CBCT, whereas 51 patients did not. The overall success rate was 85.8%, and no difference was noted between patients with and without CBCT (P = 0.347). However, radiation dose (P = 0.018) and sampling time (P = 0.001) were significantly higher in patients who underwent CBCT than in patients who did not. In learning group, CBCT improved success rate from 62.5 to 96.4% (P = 0.028), whereas it was not found in the proficiency group (P = 0.693). Additionally, success rate in patients with an atypical RAV imaging pattern was significantly higher when CBCT was used than when it was not used (P = 0.041), whereas no difference was noted in patients with typical RAV imaging pattern (P = 0.511).
conclusionFor physicians not very experienced doing AVS, there is a clear significant improvement in success rate when CBCT is used. However, CBCT only has minimal benefit for experienced operators, meanwhile CBCT may take an extra time and increase the radiation dose during AVS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.