BACKGROUND: We compared the performance of different natriuretic peptides to diagnose mild forms of left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and investigated the influence of measuring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) with different assays on the diagnostic performance of these markers. METHODS: We measured BNP (Triage BNP), NT-proBNP (Biomedica), and N-terminal pro-A-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proANP; Biomedica) in 130 consecutive patients (age range, 28-83 years) with clinically suspected mild LVD. In patients with sufficient sample volume, we measured BNP and NT-proBNP with additional assays (Shionoria and Roche, respectively). RESULTS: For identifying patients with mild systolic LVD, BNP and NT-proBNP were the best markers, with mean (95% confidence interval) areas under the curves (AUC) of 0.78 (0.63-0.89) and 0.75 (0.58-0.87), respectively. However, the diagnostic performance of NT-proANP [AUC, 0.64 (0.48-0.77)] was significantly worse than that of BNP (P = 0.014). Both BNP assays (Triage and Shionoria) and both NT-proBNP assays (Biomedica and Roche) performed equally well for the diagnosis of systolic LVD despite the poor agreement between NT-proBNP assays. In patients with isolated diastolic LVD, the diagnostic performance of the Triage BNP [AUC, 0.70 (0.56-0.81)] was significantly better (P = 0.006) than that of Biomedica NT-proBNP [0.49 (0.34-0.65)]. Furthermore, the performance of the Biomedica NT-proBNP assay was significantly worse (P = 0.03) than that of the Roche NT-proBNP assay for diagnosis of isolated diastolic LVD. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of BNP for the diagnosis of systolic or diastolic LVD is not affected by the assay used, whereas the performance of NT-proBNP for the diagnosis of isolated diastolic LVD is assay dependent.
BACKGROUND: We compared the performance of different natriuretic peptides to diagnose mild forms of left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and investigated the influence of measuring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) with different assays on the diagnostic performance of these markers. METHODS: We measured BNP (Triage BNP), NT-proBNP (Biomedica), and N-terminal pro-A-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proANP; Biomedica) in 130 consecutive patients (age range, 28-83 years) with clinically suspected mild LVD. In patients with sufficient sample volume, we measured BNP and NT-proBNP with additional assays (Shionoria and Roche, respectively). RESULTS: For identifying patients with mild systolic LVD, BNP and NT-proBNP were the best markers, with mean (95% confidence interval) areas under the curves (AUC) of 0.78 (0.63-0.89) and 0.75 (0.58-0.87), respectively. However, the diagnostic performance of NT-proANP [AUC, 0.64 (0.48-0.77)] was significantly worse than that of BNP (P = 0.014). Both BNP assays (Triage and Shionoria) and both NT-proBNP assays (Biomedica and Roche) performed equally well for the diagnosis of systolic LVD despite the poor agreement between NT-proBNP assays. In patients with isolated diastolic LVD, the diagnostic performance of the Triage BNP [AUC, 0.70 (0.56-0.81)] was significantly better (P = 0.006) than that of Biomedica NT-proBNP [0.49 (0.34-0.65)]. Furthermore, the performance of the Biomedica NT-proBNP assay was significantly worse (P = 0.03) than that of the Roche NT-proBNP assay for diagnosis of isolated diastolic LVD. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of BNP for the diagnosis of systolic or diastolic LVD is not affected by the assay used, whereas the performance of NT-proBNP for the diagnosis of isolated diastolic LVD is assay dependent.
Authors: Lisa C Costello-Boerrigter; Guido Boerrigter; Margaret M Redfield; Richard J Rodeheffer; Lynn H Urban; Douglas W Mahoney; Steven J Jacobsen; Denise M Heublein; John C Burnett Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martin Magnusson; Amra Jujic; Bo Hedblad; Gunnar Engström; Margaretha Persson; Joachim Struck; Nils G Morgenthaler; Peter Nilsson; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Thomas J Wang; Olle Melander Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Gavin Galasko; Paul O Collinson; Sophie C Barnes; David Gaze; Arjivit Lahiri; Roxy Senior Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Harsimran S Singh; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Sadia Ali; Alan H B Wu; Nelson B Schiller; Mary A Whooley Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Stefanie Reynen; Michael Schlossbauer; Ute Hubauer; Julian Hupf; Arno Mohr; Evelyn Orso; Markus Zimmermann; Andreas Luchner; Lars S Maier; Stefan Wallner; Carsten G Jungbauer Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-04-06