Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 Feb 29;124(2):244-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.11.230. Epub 2007 Mar 13.

Head-to-head comparison of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and NT-proBNP in daily clinical practice

Comparative Study

Head-to-head comparison of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and NT-proBNP in daily clinical practice

Johannes Mair et al. Int J Cardiol. .

Abstract

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP; Abbott Diagnostics) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP, Roche Diagnostics) were compared in consecutive samples of 458 patients (mean age 60 years+/-16 years; 159 female, 299 male) sent for NT-proBNP measurement to investigate influences on both markers. BNP and NT-proBNP showed a close correlation with each other (r=0.89, p<0.0001). Using age- and gender-adjusted upper reference values the inter-rater agreement of both parameters was satisfactory (83%, Cohen's kappa coefficient=0.7). The combination of normal BNP and elevated NT-proBNP was significantly more frequent than vice versa (61 vs. 16 patients), and a calculated glomerular filtration rate<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) was found in 39% of these patients. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed a significant influence of a reduced ejection fraction (<50%), renal dysfunction (calculated glomerular filtration rate<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), anemia, hypertension, age, and gender on both BNP and NT-proBNP. In conclusion, despite a close correlation and a satisfactory agreement between both markers in classification, frequent discrepancies in individual patients demonstrate that both markers are clinically not completely equivalent.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms