Does the BNP immunoassay have comparable diagnostic accuracy to the NT-proBNP immunoassay for diagnosing acute and chronic heart failure?
Both BNP and NT-proBNP assays demonstrate high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for both acute and chronic heart failure.
BACKGROUND: We used evidence-based laboratory medicine principles to compare the diagnostic accuracy of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the N-terminal part of the propeptide of BNP (NT-proBNP) assays for the diagnosis of heart failure. METHODS: In May 2006, we performed a computerized literature search of the online National Library of Medicine to select studies specifically designed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP assays. The comparison took into account the area under the curve and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) derived from ROC analysis of original studies. RESULTS: Both BNP and NT-proBNP assays were found to be clinically useful for the diagnosis of heart failure. Metaanalysis of these data was difficult because of the heterogeneity of data regarding patient population, diagnostic criteria, end-points, and immunoassay methods for both BNP and NT-proBNP. Separate metaanalyses were performed for acute and chronic heart failure. In chronic heart failure, the diagnostic DOR for BNP (8.44, 95% CI 4.66-15.30) was not significantly different from that of NT-proBNP (23.36, 95% CI 9.38-58.19). In patients with acute heart failure, the mean DOR for BNP (16.46, 95% CI 10.65-25.43) was not significantly different from that of NT-proBNP (18.61, 95% CI 12.99-26.65). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that both BNP and NT-proBNP assays have a high degree of diagnostic accuracy and clinical relevance for both acute and chronic heart failure.
Clerico et al. (Fri,) studied this question.