Background The study aim was to evaluate and compare analytical performances and clinical results of ADVIA BNP and PBNP methods using the Centaur XPT platform with those of Access BNP, using the DxI platform and the ECLIA NT-proBNP method, using the Cobas e411 platform, respectively. Methods Limits of blank (LoB), detection (LoD) and quantitation (LoQ) at 20% CV and 10% CV were evaluated according to international standardized protocols. The analytical parameters were assessed throughout a 90-working-day period using three curve calibrations. Results LoB, LoD and LoQ at 20% CV and 10% values of the ADVIA BNP method were 1.0 ng/L, 2.0 ng/L, 3.7 ng/L and 10.2 ng/L, respectively; while those of the ADVIA PBNP method were 1.3 ng/L, 3.0 ng/L, 9.7 ng/L and 22.3 ng/L, respectively. The ADVIA BNP and PBNP methods were able to measure the clinical decision values suggested by international guidelines for diagnosis of heart failure (HF) with an imprecision ≤6%. BNP concentrations measured with the ADVIA and Access methods showed a close linear regression (R=0.9923, n=200); a close linear regression was also found between NT-proBNP concentrations measured with the ADVIA and ECLIA methods (R=0.9954, n=202). However, the ADVIA method measured significantly lower BNP values than the Access method (on average -20.9%), while ADVIA PBNP method measured significantly higher NT-proBNP concentrations than the ECLIA method (on average +17.8%). Conclusions Analytical performances of the BNP and PBNP ADVIA methods are well in accordance with the quality specifications required by international guidelines for diagnosis and follow-up of patients with HF.
Keywords: cardiac endocrine function; cardiovascular risk; heart failure; immunoassay methods; natriuretic peptides.