ArticleEndocrine2026
Optimizing adrenal vein sampling interpretation for primary aldosteronism subtyping.
Article in Endocrine, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextGuidelines recommend adrenal vein sampling (AVS) for subtyping primary aldosteronism (PA); however, the optimal sample for determining lateralization when multiple successful adrenal vein samples are obtained is unclear.
objectiveTo compare the impact of different adrenal vein sample-selection strategies on PA subtyping.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted in PA patients who underwent bilaterally successful AVS with multiple samples obtained from each adrenal vein. LI was calculated using four different sample-selection strategies: (1) Maximum Aldosterone (Max Aldo), the sample with the highest aldosterone concentration; (2) Maximum Cortisol (Max Cort), the sample with the highest cortisol concentration; (3) Maximum ACR (Max ACR), the sample with the highest aldosterone-to-cortisol ratio (ACR) across samples; (4) Mean ACR, the average ACR of all samples. The theoretical detection rate of unilateral PA (UPA) and diagnostic accuracy for PA subtyping were compared among the four strategies.
resultsA total of 585 patients with PA were included. In the 460 PA patients who underwent non-adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-stimulated AVS, the theoretical detection rate of UPA varied significantly among the four sample-selection strategies (P < 0.001), and was highest with Max Aldo (62.0%, 285/460), followed by Max ACR (59.1%, 272/460), Max Cort (57.8%, 266/460) and Mean ACR (56.3%, 259/460). Among 206 patients with postoperative diagnoses, the accuracy also differed significantly among the four strategies (P < 0.001), and Max Aldo ranked first (85.9%, 95% CI: 80.6%-90.1%), followed by Max ACR (84.0%, 95% CI: 78.4%-88.5%), Mean ACR (82.0%, 95% CI: 76.3%-86.8%), and Max Cort (78.2%, 95% CI: 72.0%-83.4%). Max Aldo was more accurate than Max Cort (adjusted P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were observed between Max Aldo and Max ACR or Mean ACR (all adjusted P > 0.05). In the 308 patients who underwent ACTH-stimulated AVS, Max Aldo yielded the highest numerical detection rate and diagnostic accuracy; however, no significant differences were observed among the four strategies (P = 0.078 for theoretical UPA detection and P = 0.098 for diagnostic accuracy).
conclusionFor AVS with multiple samples, calculation of the LI based on the sample with the highest aldosterone concentration on each side tended to yield the highest numerical theoretical detection rate of UPA and accuracy, particularly in non-ACTH-stimulated AVS protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42836924What 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.