Why the study?
Evaluation of breed-specific reference limits is necessary to ensure NT-proBNP accurately distinguishes healthy from diseased dogs, motivating evaluation of existing limits in healthy Salukis.
Are currently established non-breed specific NT-proBNP reference limits adequate for clinical use in healthy Salukis?
Are currently established non-breed specific NT-proBNP reference limits adequate for clinical use in healthy Salukis?
Currently available non-breed specific NT-proBNP cut-off values are appropriate for the clinical evaluation of healthy Salukis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports adequacy of existing NT-proBNP limits in healthy Salukis; leaves open need for larger prospective validation.
Measurement of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels has been shown to have clinical significance for diagnosis and management of heart disease in dogs. Evaluation of current reference limits for specific breeds is necessary to ensure the test can accurately distinguish between healthy and diseased animals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the adequacy of currently established NT-proBNP reference limits for clinical use in healthy Salukis. Cardiac health of 33 clinically healthy Salukis was evaluated via echocardiography using available breed standards. Plasma concentrations of NT-proBNP were measured using a commercially available assay. A one-sided 97.5% upper reference limit for the NT-proBNP concentrations was calculated using non-parametric percentile method. The 97.5% upper reference limit was 769 pmol/L (90% CI, 547-1214 pmol/L) for the study dogs. This upper reference limit was within the currently established non-breed specific NT-proBNP upper reference limit of 900 pmol/L. No relationship between sex, age, or body weight on plasma levels of NT-proBNP was noted. Results of this study supports the use of currently available non-breed specific NT-proBNP cut-off values for clinical evaluation of healthy Salukis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brennan et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: