Comparison of Abbott AxSYM and Roche Elecsys 2010 for measurement of BNP and NT-proBNP

• Published in: Clinica chimica acta 2006-07, Vol.369 (1), p.95-99
• Main Authors: Chien, Tzu-I, Chen, Hui-hou, Kao, Jau-Tsuen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: BNP; Congestive heart failure; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods; Humans; Luminescent Measurements; Method comparison; Natriuretic Peptide, Brain - analysis; NT-proBNP; Peptide Fragments - analysis; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity
• ISSN: 0009-8981; 1873-3492
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2006.01.017

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are small cardiac hormones released from the heart. They can be used as an important aid to diagnose congestive heart failure (CHF). We compared the performances of the Abbott AxSYM and Roche Elecsys 2010 for the measurement of BNP and NT-proBNP. The first method uses a microparticle enzyme-linked immunoassay, whereas the other uses chemiluminescent immunometric assay. The CVs using pooled sera ranged from 3.7% to 12.7% for the AxSYM and 0.9% to 2.2% for the Elecsys 2010. The Passing and Bablok regression was Elecsys 2010 NT-proBNP = 7.23 × AxSYM BNP + 2.53. The BNP in EDTA plasma was more stable than in serum. The immunoreactivity difference of NT-proBNP in serum or EDTA plasma was within 10% when stored at 4 °C or 25 °C for 72 h. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were different for both assays, and the areas under the curves were 0.704 and 0.841 for the AxSYM and Elecsys 2010 method, respectively. Both assays were not entirely specific for heart failure. The precision and stability for NT-proBNP was better than for BNP in serum. It is important to use method-appropriate reference ranges (or cutoff) for the BNP and NT-proBNP, respectively, in the assessment of CHF.