Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Intraprocedural CT Improve the Success Rate of Adrenal Venous Sampling? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Data from 809 Patients

  • Clinical Investigation
  • VENOUS INTERVENTIONS
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the technical success rate of adrenal venous sampling (AVS) with and without intraprocedural computed tomography (CT).

Methods

A systematic search of the Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for comparative studies using intraprocedural CT was undertaken. More than 1,000 records were screened using titles and abstracts. Full texts of 121 studies were reviewed and 14 eligible studies were identified. Nine studies had adequate comparative data and were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

A research synthesis was performed and data from 809 patients were pooled in multiple random effect models. Overall success rate of AVS without and with intraprocedural CT was 72.7% (59.3–83.0%) and 92.5% (86.6–95.9), respectively. The addition of intraprocedural CT increased the technical success rate by 19.8% (P < 0.001), with an odds ratio (OR) of 5.5 (3.3–9.2; P < 0.01). In meta-regression, odds of success with intraprocedural CT was associated with younger age (beta: 0.16 ± 0.05; P:0.001), higher body mass index (BMI; beta:0.08 ± 0.03; P:0.002), and higher selectivity index (defined as the ratio of cortisol in the adrenal vein to that in the inferior vena cava; beta:0.35 ± 0.08, P < 0.001). We found a linear inverse association between operator’s success without CT and improved success with intraprocedural CT (R2: 0.86).

Conclusions

Intraprocedural CT is not required for every case, but can be performed in difficult cases or when operators' success is limited. The benefit was more pronounced in younger patients with higher BMI, female gender, and with higher selectivity.

Level of evidence

III Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized clinical trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rossi E, Regolisti G, Negro A, et al. High prevalence of primary aldosteronism using postcaptopril plasma aldosterone to renin ratio as a screening test among Italian hypertensives. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15:896–902.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rossi GP, Bernini G, Caliumi C, et al. A prospective study of the prevalence of primary aldosteronism in 1,125 hypertensive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2293–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Douma S, Petidis K, Doumas M, et al. Prevalence of primary hyperaldosteronism in resistant hypertension: a retrospective observational study. Lancet. 2008;371:1921–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Raman SP, Lessne M, Kawamoto S, et al. Diagnostic performance of multi-detector computed tomography in distinguishing unilateral from bilateral abnormalities in primary hyperaldosteronism: comparison of multi-detector computed tomography with adrenal vein sampling. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39:414–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Melby JC, Spark RF, Dale SL, et al. Diagnosis and localization of aldosterone-producing adenomas by adrenal-vein cateterization. N Engl J Med. 1967;277:1050–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kempers MJ, Lenders JW, van Outheusden L, et al. Systematic review: diagnostic procedures to differentiate unilateral from bilateral adrenal abnormality in primary aldosteronism. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:329–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarlon-Bartoli G, Michel N, Taieb D, et al. Adrenal venous sampling is crucial before an adrenalectomy whatever the adrenal-nodule size on computed tomography. J Hypertens. 2011;29:1196–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Young WF, Stanson AW, Thompson GB, et al. Role for adrenal venous sampling in primary aldosteronism. Surgery. 2004;136:1227–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daunt N. Adrenal vein sampling: how to make it quick, easy, and successful. Radiographics. 2005;25(Suppl 1):S143-158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulatero P, Bertello C, Sukor N, et al. Impact of different diagnostic criteria during adrenal vein sampling on reproducibility of subtype diagnosis in patients with primary aldosteronism. Hypertension. 2010;55:667–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mulatero P, Bertello C, Rossato D, et al. Roles of clinical criteria, computed tomography scan, and adrenal vein sampling in differential diagnosis of primary aldosteronism subtypes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:1366–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harvey A, Kline G, Pasieka JL. Adrenal venous sampling in primary hyperaldosteronism: comparison of radiographic with biochemical success and the clinical decision-making with “less than ideal” testing. Surgery. 2006;140:847–53 (discussion 853-845).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Onozawa S, Murata S, Tajima H, et al. Evaluation of right adrenal vein cannulation by computed tomography angiography in 140 consecutive patients undergoing adrenal venous sampling. Eur J Endocrinol. 2014;170:601–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Georgiades C, KharlipValdeig JS, et al. [Use of C-arm CT for improving the hit rate for selective blood sampling from adrenal veins]. Radiologe. 2009;49:848–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Higashide T, Funabashi N, Tanaka T, et al. Detection of adrenal veins on selective retrograde CT adrenal venography in comparison with digital subtraction angiography in subjects with established diagnosis of one-sided adrenal aldosterone-producing tumor confirmed by adrenal vein sampling, histopathology and clinical course. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:3254–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Busser WM, Arntz MJ, Jenniskens SF, et al. Image registration of cone-beam computer tomography and preprocedural computer tomography aids in localization of adrenal veins and decreasing radiation dose in adrenal vein sampling. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38:993–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang CC, Lee BC, Liu KL, et al. Non-stimulated adrenal venous sampling using Dyna computed tomography in patients with primary aldosteronism. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37143.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Onozawa S, Murata S, Yamaguchi H, et al. Can an enhanced thin-slice computed tomography delineate the right adrenal vein and improve the success rate? Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34:611–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Morita S, Yamazaki H, Endo K, et al. Image fusion guidance with pre-procedural CT with real-time fluoroscopy for adrenal venous sampling. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41:1214–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Park CH, Hong N, Han K, et al. C-Arm computed tomography-assisted adrenal venous sampling improved right adrenal vein cannulation and sampling quality in primary aldosteronism. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2018;33:236–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Maruyama K, Sofue K, Okada T, et al. Advantages of intraprocedural unenhanced CT during adrenal venous sampling to confirm accurate catheterization of the right adrenal vein. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:542–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meyrignac O, Arcis E, Delchier MC, et al. Impact of cone beam—CT on adrenal vein sampling in primary aldosteronism. Eur J Radiol. 2020;124:108792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1:97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nima Hafezi-Nejad and David M. Gullotti have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans Street, Zayed Tower 7203, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Nima Hafezi-Nejad, David M. Gullotti, Christopher R. Bailey, Mark L. Lessne & Brian P. Holly

  2. Vascular & Interventional Specialists, Charlotte Radiology, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Mark L. Lessne

Authors
  1. Nima Hafezi-Nejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. Gullotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher R. Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark L. Lessne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brian P. Holly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian P. Holly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 30 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hafezi-Nejad, N., Gullotti, D.M., Bailey, C.R. et al. Does Intraprocedural CT Improve the Success Rate of Adrenal Venous Sampling? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Data from 809 Patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 45, 29–40 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-021-02954-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-021-02954-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation