Key result
The fully-automated TRIAGE method for measuring plasma BNP demonstrated a close linear relationship with the standard immunoradiometric assay (r = 0.932).
Why the study?
Does the TRIAGE fully-automated immunoassay provide comparable analytical performance to the immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) for measuring plasma BNP?
Observational (n=83)
Does the TRIAGE fully-automated immunoassay provide comparable analytical performance to the immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) for measuring plasma BNP?
Effect estimate: r = 0.932
The TRIAGE fully-automated immunoassay provides rapid and comparable BNP measurements to the standard IRMA method, making it suitable for point-of-care testing in emergency settings.
Supports analytical comparability of TRIAGE to IRMA for BNP; leaves open clinical utility in guiding HF management.
The clinical relevance of measuring plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) is well-known, especially in patients with heart failure. Recently, a new method for measuring BNP, called TRIAGE, has been developed which can be used for point-of-care testing of patients with congestive heart failure. The aim of the present study is to compare the analytical performance of this fully-automated method to that of an immunoradiometric assay (IRMA), routinely used to measure BNP. The TRIAGE method is a non-competitive immunofluorometric assay which uses two different binding phases, specific for two different epitopes of the BNP amino acid chain, to form a sandwich with the specific ligand (i.e., BNP). A polyclonal antibody is included in the fluorescent immunoassay reagents which are contained in the assay devices and a monoclonal antibody is immobilized in the detection lane of the assay device. The imprecision of the TRIAGE method was approximately 12% for BNP concentrations in the normal range and about 18% for BNP concentrations above the normal range. The mean reading time of the TRIAGE method was 14.5 +/- 8.6 min. A close linear relationship was found between the BNP values measured with the two methods (TRIAGE = 24.6+0.933 IRMA; r = 0.932, n = 83). The TRIAGE method is indicated for BNP assay in ambulatory and coronary or emergency units, where usually only a few samples (preferentially whole blood samples) must be measured in a short time. The IRMA method should be preferred for pathophysiological studies, requiring the highest degree of precision and sensitivity for simultaneous measurement of several stored plasma samples or tissue extracts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ry et al. (2001) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=83). TRIAGE method vs. Immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) was evaluated on Correlation of BNP values between methods (r = 0.932). The fully-automated TRIAGE method for measuring plasma BNP demonstrated a close linear relationship with the standard immunoradiometric assay (r = 0.932).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: