Advantages of Intraprocedural Unenhanced CT During Adrenal Venous Sampling to Confirm Accurate Catheterization of the Right Adrenal Vein
- 10 Downloads
To evaluate the advantages of intraprocedural CT during adrenal venous sampling (AVS) to confirm accurate catheterization of the right adrenal vein (RAV).
Materials and Methods
This single-institution study included 106 patients (mean age 52.4 years; range 28–74 years) with primary aldosteronism who performed contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) before AVS following AVS between January 2011 and March 2018. After catheterization of the RAV under fluoroscopic guidance, unenhanced CT images were obtained to confirm catheter position on unified CT angiography system. Catheter repositioning was performed when the catheter was inaccurately positioned. Venography findings were classified into two groups: (1) presumably cannulated in the RAV (presumed RAV group) and (2) obscured visualization of the RAV because of collateral vessels (obscured RAV group). Success rates of AVS were compared using Fisher’s exact test.
The overall success of AVS was achieved in 104 patients (98.1%). Catheter was deviated into the IVC during intraprocedural CT in four patients. Fourteen patients (14.0%) required catheter repositioning by intraprocedural CT images, and accurate catheterization in the RAV was eventually accomplished. The success rate of AVS was significantly higher in the presumed RAV group (90.1% [73/81]) than that in the obscured RAV group (68.4% [13/19]) (p = 0.024). If intraprocedural CT was not acquired during AVS, the success rate of AVS would have been significantly lower (84.9% [90/106]) compared with that use of intraprocedural CT (98.1% [104/106]) (p < 0.001).
Intraprocedural unenhanced CT by referring to the preprocedural CECT before AVS enables the confirmation of accurate catheterization of the RAV.
Level of Evidence
Level 4, case series.
KeywordsAldosteronism Adrenal venous sampling Computed tomography Adrenal vein Catheter
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Consent for Publication
Consent for publication was obtained for every individual person’s data included in the study.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This retrospective study design was approved by our institutional review board. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 20.Loffroy R, Lin M, Rao P, et al. Comparing the detectability of hepatocellular carcinoma by C-arm dual-phase cone-beam computed tomography during hepatic arteriography with conventional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:97–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar