Active renin versus plasma renin activity to define aldosterone-to-renin ratio for primary aldosteronism

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the assessment of the plasma aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) has become an established screening method for the diagnosis of primary aldosteronism. Plasma renin activity (PRA) is usually measured to define ARR although, increasingly, renin concentration alone is often measured in clinical routine. OBJECTIVE: To determine the threshold of ARR using active renin concentration to screen for primary aldosteronism. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: To determine the ARR threshold based on plasma immunoreactive renin concentration (irR), we measured plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC), irR and PRA in 36 hypertensive patients, nine thereof with adrenal adenoma, and compared ARRs calculated from irR and PRA, respectively. SETTING: Single-centre, hypertension clinic in a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: PRA ranged from 0.41-14.9 ng/ml per h and irR from 1.1-72 ng/l. There was an excellent correlation between PRA and irR (r = 0.98, P < 0.0001) and between ARRPRA and ARRirR (r = 0.96, P < 0.0001). An ARRPRA > 750 pmol/l per ng/ml per h was previously found to be highly predictive of primary aldosteronism because 90% of the corresponding patients failed to suppress PAC upon saline infusion or fludrocortisone. The corresponding threshold value for ARRirR was 150 pmol/ng in our patients. Using these cut-offs, nine subjects had both increased ARRPRA and ARRirR while, in three patients, either ARRPRA or ARRirR were increased. The nine patients with increased ARRPRA and ARRirR also had PAC > 650 pmol/l. Only these patients had adrenal adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: The ARR threshold to screen for primary aldosteronism may be based on measurement of irR. An ARRirR > 150 pmol/ng may indicate primary aldosteronism.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.