RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative parathyroid hormone (ioPTH) monitoring (IPM) is vital to minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Techniques vary in assay sampling, potentially affecting predictive accuracy of operative success. Initial guidelines were established using peripheral sites, but central sites may be preferred or necessary when peripheral access is not feasible. We hypothesize that changing collection sites from preexcision peripheral sites to postexcision central sites would not affect IPM accuracy. METHODS: Analysis of 64 consecutive patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism was undertaken. PTH assays were collected simultaneously from a peripheral vein (PV) and central vein (CV) preexcision and at a 10-min interval after initial parathyroid excision. IPM success was defined as PTH decrease ≥50% 10 min after initial excision. Predictive accuracy was determined by the need to resect another abnormal gland and biochemical normalization in the postoperative clinic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method with area under the curve (AUC) compared diagnostic accuracy of different assay approaches. RESULTS: Centrally, a statistically higher mean pre- and postexcision ioPTH of 391 pg/ml and 58 pg/ml was found compared with peripheral means of 156 pg/ml and 49 pg/ml, respectively (p < 0.001). The AUC when changing from a PV preexcision to a CV postexcision ioPTH was 0.89, comparable to AUC for peripheral or central assay collections alone (AUC = 0.83 and 0.85, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that altering collection sites does not alter assay validity. In cases where peripheral sampling is compromised, changing from a peripheral to central sites will not likely alter the predictive accuracy of IPM significantly.
