Clinical Outcomes of 1625 Patients With Primary Aldosteronism Subtyped With Adrenal Vein Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to measure the clinical benefits of adrenal venous sampling (AVS), a test recommended by guidelines for primary aldosteronism (PA) patients seeking surgical cure, in a large registry of PA patients submitted to AVS. Data of 1625 consecutive patients submitted to AVS in 19 tertiary referral centers located in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America were collected in a large multicenter international registry. The primary end points were the rate of bilateral success, ascertained lateralization of PA, adrenalectomy, and of cured arterial hypertension among AVS-guided and non AVS-guided adrenalectomy patients. AVS was successful in 80.1% of all cases but allowed identification of unilateral PA in only 45.5% by the criteria in use at each center. Adrenalectomy was performed in 41.8% of all patients and cured arterial hypertension in 19.6% of the patients, 2-fold more frequently in women than men ( P <0.001). When AVS-guided, surgery provided a higher rate of cure of hypertension than when non-AVS-guided (40.0% versus 30.5%; P =0.027). Compared with surgical cases, patients treated medically needed more antihypertensive medications ( P <0.001) and exhibited a higher rate of persistent hypokalemia requiring potassium supplementation (4.9% versus 2.3%; P <0.01). The low rate of adrenalectomy and cure of hypertension in PA patients seeking surgical cure indicates suboptimal AVS use, possibly related to issues in patient selection, technical success, and AVS data interpretation. Given the better outcomes of AVS-guided adrenalectomy, these results call for actions to improve the diagnostic use of this test that is necessary for detection of surgical PA candidates. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01234220.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".