Search

Background Adrenal vein sampling ( AVS) is useful for distinguishing unilateral versus bilateral hypersecretion in primary aldosteronism ( PA), but is technically challenging. Furthermore, the use of adrenocorticotropic hormone ( ACTH)-stimulation in AVS is controversial. We implemented a Monash Health-specific AVS protocol in 2010. Aim The audit aimed to: (i) examine the impact of a dedicated protocol on success rates of AVS at a tertiary referral centre; (ii) evaluate the impact of AVS on sub-typing of PA; and (iii) assess the utility of ACTH stimulation in AVS. Methods AVS was performed on patients with PA confirmed by positive saline suppression testing (aldosterone level >140 pmol/L post-saline infusion), with sequential sampling of adrenal and peripheral veins, pre- and post- ACTH infusion. Patients with unilateral aldosterone-producing adenoma diagnosed on successful AVS were referred for adrenalectomy. Results Between 2010 and 2014 inclusive, a total of 28 AVS procedures was performed, with complete pre- and post- ACTH data for 19 procedures. Bilateral successful cannulation rates improved post-implementation of our protocol (61% vs 41%). Of the patients, 32% had discordant imaging and AVS results: four patients with unilateral adenomas did not lateralise on AVS and were managed medically; four patients with bilateral or no adenomas on imaging, lateralised on AVS and had surgery. Overall, use of ACTH did not increase successful cannulation and tended to mask lateralisation. Conclusion AVS is crucial in subtype classification of PA and should be performed by a dedicated radiologist with a standardised protocol. AVS outcomes were not improved with the use of ACTH stimulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Primary aldosteronism (PA) causes 10-15% of cases of hypertension, and it is increasingly recognised as being under-diagnosed. An interventional radiology procedure, adrenal vein sampling (AVS), is a necessary and important diagnostic procedure for complete workup of PA. There is an anticipated increase in demand for AVS as detection of PA improves. This study aims to describe the current landscape of AVS in Australia and New Zealand (NZ)., Methods: Two surveys exploring AVS methodology and performance were conducted of (i) Endocrinology Unit Heads and (ii) interventional radiologists who perform AVS, at public hospitals with Endocrinology Units across Australia and NZ., Results: Responses were received from 48/53 Endocrinology Unit Heads (91%) and 35 radiologists from 26 sites (87% of AVS sites). AVS was provided at 28/48 Endocrinology sites (58%) across Australia and NZ. In Australia, sites were concentrated in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland with none in the Northern Territory; in NZ, sites were more evenly distributed across the North and South Islands. AVS was performed by 1-2 dedicated radiologists at 24 sites, 2-3 radiologists at two sites and a rotating roster of radiologists at two sites. Responses to both surveys revealed significant variation in AVS methodology and interpretation of AVS results., Conclusion: There is significant heterogeneity in the availability of AVS, the procedural details and the interpretation of results across Australia and NZ, which potentially impacts the quality of patient care and ability to scale up AVS capacity to meet increasing demand., (© 2023 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.)

Objective: To improve appropriate ordering of head computed tomography (CT) in patients presenting with a head injury by applying an evidence-based head injury guideline., Methods: This was a comparison observational study of CT head ordering in the setting of head trauma between two groups of patients. There was a pre-guideline implementation group and a post-guideline implementation group. Our Southernhealth Head Injury Guideline was largely based on the Canadian CT Head Rule by Steill et al. 2001.We also applied the Canadian CT Head Rule to our post-guideline implementation group., Results: CT ordering rate in the pre-guideline group was 31.6% compared with 59% in the post-guideline group with a relative risk of 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.56-2.27). Abnormal head CT were reported in 6.8% in the pre-guideline group and 5% in the post-guideline group (relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.44-1.51). When we applied the Canadian CT Head Rule to the prospective group, four patients with clinically significant abnormal head CT would not have been scanned. The sensitivity of the guideline was 100% (95% CI 79-100%), with a specificity of 43.22% (95% CI 37-48%) in diagnosing a significant head injury on CT., Conclusion: The Southernhealth Head Injury Guideline is safe and easy to apply to minor and major head injuries.