Adrenal Vein Sampling: Does the Location of the Non-adrenal Venous Sample Matter?

PURPOSE: Adrenal vein sampling (AVS) is used to lateralise and differentiate unilateral from bilateral aldosterone production in primary aldosteronism. The adrenal venous samples are standardised to a peripheral or low inferior vena cava (IVC) sample and compared. It is unknown whether the location of the non-adrenal sample affects the results. This study compares AVS results standardised to the low IVC and right external iliac vein (REIV). METHODS: Patients who underwent AVS between March 2021 and May 2023 were included. All procedures were undertaken by a single operator (AA). Demographic data and AVS results were collected from patients' electronic records. Catheterisation success and lateralisation were assessed using both low IVC and REIV samples. Equivalence test was used to compare the cortisol and aldosterone levels. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients, (M: F = 38:43), aged between 29 and 74 were included. Bilateral successful adrenal vein cannulation was achieved in 79/81 (97.5%) cases. The mean cortisol levels from the REIV were statistically equivalent although there was a small and not biologically significant difference from the low IVC (respective geometric means 183 nmol/l vs. 185 nmol/l, p = 0.015). This small difference in cortisol may be due to accessory adrenal venous drainage into the IVC. The aldosterone and aldosterone/cortisol ratios were statistically equivalent. There was no discordance in selectivity or lateralisation when the IVC or REIV measurements were used. CONCLUSION: The IVC and REIV samples may be used interchangeably during AVS.

Clinical Evaluation of Assays for Plasma Renin Activity and Aldosterone Measurement by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry.

BACKGROUND: Aldosterone and renin are pivotal hormones in the regulation of salt and water homeostasis and blood pressure. Measurement of renin and aldosterone in serum/plasma is essential for the investigation of primary hyperaldosteronism (PA) and monitoring of glucocorticoid replacement therapy. METHODS: We report 2 LC-MS/MS methods developed to measure aldosterone and plasma renin activity (PRA). PRA was determined by endogenous enzymatic generation of angiotensin I using 150 µL of sample. Generated angiotensin I was purified by solid phase extraction prior to chromatographic separation and mass spectrometry. Aldosterone measurement required 300 µL of sample extracted with MTBE prior to LC-MS/MS analysis. RESULTS: The PRA method was linear (1.2-193 nmol/L), sensitive (LLOQ = 1.2 nmol/L), precise (CV = 4.1%), and specific (no cross reactivity for a number of structurally similar steroids). Dilutional linearity and recovery (84%) were acceptable. Accuracy was confirmed by comparison against our current RIA method. The aldosterone method had equally acceptable performance characteristics. Reference ranges in 110 healthy normotensive subjects were: PRA 0.2-3.7 nmol/L/h and aldosterone 50-950 pmol/L. Consecutive patients (n = 62) with adrenal incidentalomas shown to have no functional adrenal disease; their post overnight 1 mg dexamethasone test values were: PRA 0.2-2.6 nmol/L/h and aldosterone 55-480 pmol/L. Serum aldosterone values after 2 liter saline suppression were-normal subjects (n = 17): 78-238 pmol/L and confirmed primary hyperaldosteronism (n = 25): 131-1080 pmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed robust assays for PRA and aldosterone with appropriate clinical evaluation. These assays are now in routine practice in the UK.

Clinical roles in clinical biochemistry: a national survey of practice in the UK.

Background Using an online survey, we collected data to present a picture of how clinical authorization is performed in the UK. Methods A 21-question survey was uploaded to www.surveymonkey.com , and responses were invited via the mail base of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. The questionnaire examined the intensity and function of the duty biochemist role and how different types of authorization are used to handle and release results. Results Of 70 responses received, 60 were suitable for analysis. Responses were received from every region of the UK. A typical duty biochemist shift started on average at 8:50, and finished at 17:25. The mean duration was 8 h 58 min. Clinical scientists are the most abundantly represented group on duty biochemist rotas. Higher banded clinical scientists and chemical pathologists covered out-of-hours shifts. Results were handled differently depending on the level of abnormality and the requesting area. Normal results tended to be released either directly from the analyser or after technical then autoauthorization (90%). A greater preference for clinical authorization was seen for abnormal and critical results originating from outpatients (49% and 69%, respectively) or general practice (51% and 71%) than for inpatients (33% and 53%) or A&E (25% and 37%). Conclusions The handling and authorization of biochemistry results varies greatly between laboratories. The role is clearly heterogeneous in the UK. Guidance from the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Royal College of Pathologists may help to clarify the essential roles of the duty biochemist.

Measurement of aldosterone in blood.

This chapter describes the measurement of aldosterone concentration in plasma or serum. Aldosterone specificity is improved by first extracting the aldosterone into dichloromethane. A radioimmunoassay is then performed on the dried and reconstituted extract using an anti-aldosterone antibody and iodinated aldosterone. The antibody-bound fraction is separated from the unbound fraction using activated charcoal. The notes section provides extra information for steps in the assay that can be problematic.

Measurement of plasma renin activity.

This chapter describes the measurement of plasma renin activity by calculation of the quantity of angiotensin I that is released in plasma by the action of endogenous enzyme renin on angiotensinogen, the endogenous substrate. Details are given for the generation of angiotensin I from plasma using controlled pH and temperature conditions. The generated angiotensin I is then quantified by a radioimmunoassay using anti-angiotensin I antibody and iodinated angiotensin I as label. Separation of the antibody-bound fraction from the unbound is achieved using dextran-coated charcoal. Additional notes describe critical steps in the assay. The correct procedures for sample handling to overcome the potential problems of cryoactivation of prorenin to renin are described.

The clinical utility of two renin mass methods to detect primary hyperaldosteronism compared with renin activity.

BACKGROUND: Primary hyperaldosteronism (PHA) is characterized by a raised plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) with suppressed plasma renin activity (PRA). We evaluated two renin mass methods for PHA detection compared with the PAC:PRA ratio. METHODS: Samples from patients attending a specialist hypertensive clinic were analysed by Liaison automated chemiluminescent immunoassay and Diagnostic Systems Laboratories (DSL) immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) for renin mass; I(-125) radioimmunoassay of angiotensin I generated from endogenous angiotensinogen for PRA; Siemens Coat-a-count radioimmunoassay for PAC. Subjects included those on ß-blockers which suppress renin, causing an equivalent biochemical picture to PHA. Aldosterone/renin ratios (ARR) were calculated for PRA, DSL and Liaison methods. The first 100 subjects were used to identify cut-off ratios ensuring maximum specificity at 100% sensitivity for PHA detection. This cut-off was retested in a subsequent population (n = 43). RESULTS: A Liaison renin of 5 ng/L separated PRAs of ≤0.5 from ≥0.6 pmol/mL/h. The DSL method had greater scatter. In population 1 (18 PHA), cut-off ratios of >118 pmol/ng (Liaison) and >60 pmol/ng (DSL) gave specificities of 58.5% and 61%, respectively, with 100% sensitivity. If criteria for PHA included PAC ≥350 pmol/L and excluded ß-blocked subjects, specificity increased to 95.1% and 90% for Liaison and DSL, respectively. In population 2 (6 PHA), specificities for Liaison and DSL ARRs were 86.4% and 78.3%. Using the ratio with PAC and ß-blocker criteria, specificities for Liaison and DSL were 97.3% and 86.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Liaison ARR used with PAC and ß-blocker criteria provided an automatable alternative to identify the same patients as the PAC:PRA ratio.

Comparison of the clinical utility of atrial and B type natriuretic peptide measurement for the diagnosis of systolic dysfunction in a low-risk population.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of B type natriuretic peptide and its N terminal prohormone (NTproBNP) can now be performed routinely by automated high-throughput immunoassays. The study compared measurement of NTproBNP with measurement of N terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (NTproANP) for detection of ventricular systolic dysfunction in primary care. METHODS: 734 subjects aged >45 years (349 men and 385 women, median age 58 years, range 45-89, interquartile range 51-67 years) from seven representative general practices attended for echocardiography with determination of ejection fraction and completed a questionnaire. Blood samples were collected into gel serum separation tubes (Becton-Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, USA), the serum separated and aliquots stored frozen at -70 degrees C until analyses. Samples were analysed for NTproBNP (Roche Diagnostics, Lewes, UK; coefficient of variation (CV) 3.2-2.4%) and for NTproANP (Biomedica, Vienna, Austria; CV 5.6-10.1%). Echocardiography was used as the diagnostic "gold standard", with ventricular systolic dysfunction defined as abnormal when there was an ejection fraction of

The influence of the route of oestrogen administration on serum levels of cortisol-binding globulin and total cortisol.

OBJECTIVES: Oral oestrogen preparations increase total cortisol concentration by increasing circulating cortisol-binding globulin (CBG) levels. Transdermal oestrogen treatments are being used increasingly in clinical practice. These topical preparations may have less of an effect on CBG and hence on total serum cortisol levels by reducing hepatic oestrogen exposure. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of oral and topical oestrogen treatments on CBG, total serum cortisol and salivary cortisol levels. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This was a single-centre, cross-sectional study of 37 women aged 33 +/- 6 years (mean +/- SD). Fourteen women were using oral oestrogen therapy, eight were using transdermal therapy and 15 were oestrogen-naïve control subjects. MEASUREMENTS: Following a screening visit, the subjects attended the endocrine investigation unit following an overnight fast. Blood and salivary samples were taken from 0830 to 0930 h between days 10 and 18 of the menstrual cycle (where appropriate). RESULTS: Total serum cortisol concentrations were 67% higher in those receiving oral oestrogen when compared to control subjects (660.9 +/- 89.9 vs. 395.4 +/- 53.2 nmol/l, P < 0.001). Values in those receiving transdermal oestrogen (334.7 +/- 72.0 nmol/l) were no different from the control group. CBG levels were higher in those on oral oestrogen therapy (110.9 +/- 19.6 mg/l, P < 0.001) when compared with either those on transdermal oestrogen (51.0 +/- 5.4 mg/l) or the control population (49.0 +/- 11.8 mg/l). Similar salivary cortisol concentrations were recorded in the three groups (controls 13.8 +/- 2.6 nmol/l, oral oestrogen 15.5 +/- 2.6 nmol/l, transdermal oestrogen 15.7 +/- 3.9 nmol/l). CONCLUSIONS: Oral oestrogen-containing preparations increase total cortisol levels by increasing circulating CBG concentration. These effects were not seen in patients using transdermal oestrogen replacement. Although further studies are indicated, it is probably unnecessary to routinely discontinue transdermal oestrogen replacement when performing an assessment of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis or evaluating adequacy of hydrocortisone replacement.

What is the most cost-effective strategy to screen for left ventricular systolic dysfunction: natriuretic peptides, the electrocardiogram, hand-held echocardiography, traditional echocardiography, or their combination?

AIMS: To assess the screening characteristics and cost-effectiveness of screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in community subjects. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1392 members of the general public and 928 higher risk subjects were randomly selected from seven community practices. Attending subjects underwent an ECG, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) serum levels, and traditional echocardiography (TE). A total of 533 consecutive subjects underwent hand-held echocardiography (HE). The screening characteristics and cost-effectiveness (cost per case of LVSD diagnosed) of eight strategies to predict LVSD (LVSD <45% on TE) were compared. A total of 1205 subjects attended. Ninety six per cent of subjects with LVSD in the general population had identifiable risk factors. All screening strategies gave excellent negative predictive value. Screening high-risk subjects was most cost-effective, screening low-risk subjects least cost-effective. TE screening was the least cost-effective strategy. NTproBNP screening gave similar cost savings to ECG screening; HE screening greater cost-savings, and HE screening following NTproBNP or ECG pre-screening the greatest cost-savings, costing approximately 650 Euros per case of LVSD diagnosed in high-risk subjects (63% cost-savings vs.TE). CONCLUSION: Thus several different modalities allow cost-effective community-based screening for LVSD, especially in high-risk subjects. Such programmes would be cost-effective and miss few cases of LVSD in the community.

What is the normal range for N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide? How well does this normal range screen for cardiovascular disease?

AIMS: To define the N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NTpBNP) normal range, assessing its cardiovascular screening characteristics in general population and higher risk subjects. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2320 subjects (1392 general population and 928 high-risk) > or =45 years old, selected randomly from seven community practices, were invited to undergo clinical assessment and echocardiography and to assess NTpBNP serum levels. Of these, 1205 attended. The NTpBNP normal range was calculated and its cardiovascular screening characteristics were assessed. Age (P<0.0001) and female gender (P<0.0001) independently predicted NTpBNP levels in normal subjects. In the general population, age- and gender-stratified normal NTpBNP levels gave a negative-predictive value (NPV) of 99% in excluding left ventricular systolic dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, and valvular heart disease, and a positive predictive value of 56% in detecting any cardiovascular disease assessed. In high-risk subjects, these values were 98 and 62%, respectively. Ninety-five per cent of subjects with NTpBNP levels over four times the normal had significant cardiovascular disease with the others having renal dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Normal NTpBNP levels should be stratified by age and gender. Normal NTpBNP levels give high NPV in excluding significant cardiovascular disease. Most subjects with raised NTpBNP levels and almost all subjects with NTpBNP levels over four times the normal have significant cardiovascular disease.

Intraindividual hormonal variability in ultrasonographically timed successive ovulatory menstrual cycles is detected only in the luteal phase in infertility patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess intraindividual variation of follicle stimulating hormone, luteinising hormone, estradiol, progesterone, inhibin A, and inhibin B in three successive ovulatory cycles correlated with transvaginal ultrasound monitored morphological changes in the ovary. METHODS: Serial transvaginal color and pulsed Doppler ultrasound and serum hormone analysis were performed during midfollicular, periovulatory, and midluteal phase for three consecutive cycles in 19 patients with normal menstrual cycles. RESULTS: Luteinising hormone and progesterone showed significant differences in the midluteal phase between the 1st and 2nd cycle (luteinising hormone p = 0.007 and progesterone p = 0.02). Progesterone showed a similar significant change (p = 0.013) between the 2nd and 3rd cycle. No significant differences were seen in the midfollicular or periovulatory phases or between the 1st and 3rd cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Luteal phase progesterone and luteinising hormone concentrations showed individual variation in successive cycles suggesting early or late corpus luteolysis. Follicular and periovulatory hormone levels were similar in subsequent ovulatory cycles.