ArticleEndocrine connections2025
Reevaluating the use of metanephrine in adrenal vein sampling: a single centre retrospective study.
Article in Endocrine connections, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal treatment of primary aldosteronism (PA) requires precise subtyping, usually performed by adrenal vein sampling (AVS) using cortisol to assess selectivity. Circadian and stress-induced variability or cortisol co-secretion may limit interpretability of cortisol-based assessment. It was hypothesised that metanephrine could be used as an alternative to cortisol to improve the interpretability of AVS. In this retrospective analysis of 102 consecutive patients with PA who underwent AVS, we compared cortisol- and metanephrine-based selectivity and lateralisation rates using different cut-offs. The study also included patients with repeated sampling as well as those with and without cortisol co-secretion. Using cortisol, bilaterally selective AVS was achieved in 90.2% of patients. Applying a selectivity index cut-off of ≥25 for metanephrine and ≥2 for cortisol, 83.6% of samples showed consistent selectivity classification. Non-selective samples were similarly frequent with metanephrine and cortisol (19.3 vs 18.9%). Rates of bilateral selectivity and lateralisation did not differ significantly between patients with and without cortisol co-secretion using either parameter. Lateralisation indices showed an 81% concordance between both markers. At follow-up, of six patients with discordant results operated following cortisol-based AVS (despite metanephrine indicating bilateral disease), biochemical cure was missing in one, partial in another, and complete in three patients. In conclusion, metanephrine is an alternative for AVS interpretation that might be useful in cases of limited cortisol interpretability. However, in a reference centre with optimised AVS protocols, metanephrine did not demonstrate superiority over cortisol. Given cost and availability considerations, cortisol remains the standard, with metanephrine as a supplement in selected cases.
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.