Key result
ADVIA BNP and NT-proBNP immunoassays showed close linear regression with established methods (R=0.9923 and R=0.9954) but measured lower BNP (-20.9%) and higher NT-proBNP (+17.8%) concentrations.
Why the study?
How do the analytical performances and clinical results of the ADVIA BNP and NT-proBNP immunoassays compare to established methods?
Population
200 samples for BNP comparison and 202 samples for NT-proBNP comparison
Comparison
ADVIA BNP and PBNP immunoassays on the Centaur… vs Access BNP on the DxI platform and ECLIA…
Design
Other
Follow-up
90-working-day period for analytical assessment
Authors
Loading...
Meets guideline imprecision targets at HF decision points; leaves open need for assay-specific cutoffs due to systematic value biases.
How do the analytical performances and clinical results of the ADVIA BNP and NT-proBNP immunoassays compare to established methods?
The ADVIA BNP and NT-proBNP immunoassays demonstrate analytical performances meeting international guideline requirements for heart failure diagnosis, despite systematic biases compared to established assays.
Masotti et al. (2018) studied Heart failure (n=202). ADVIA BNP and PBNP immunoassays vs. Access BNP and ECLIA NT-proBNP methods was evaluated on Linear regression between ADVIA and comparator methods. ADVIA BNP and NT-proBNP immunoassays showed close linear regression with established methods (R=0.9923 and R=0.9954) but measured lower BNP (-20.9%) and higher NT-proBNP (+17.8%) concentrations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: