| Title: |
Proficiency testing project for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the N-terminal part of the propeptide of BNP (NT-proBNP) immunoassays: the CardioOrmocheck study. |
| Authors: |
PRONTERA C; ZANINOTTO M; GIOVANNINI S; ZUCCHELLI GC; PILO A; SCIACOVELLI L; CLERICO A.; PLEBANI, MARIO |
| Contributors: |
Prontera, C; Zaninotto, M; Giovannini, S; Zucchelli, Gc; Pilo, A; Sciacovelli, L; Plebani, Mario; Clerico, A. |
| Publication Year: |
2009 |
| Collection: |
Padua Research Archive (IRIS - Università degli Studi di Padova) |
| Description: |
Background: We organized and conducted a proficiency testing study (CardioOrmocheck) to evaluate the differences in analytical performance of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) immunoassays. Methods: Approximately 90 Italian laboratories were involved in the 2005-2007 proficiency testing cycles, while 112 laboratories took part in the 2008 cycle (from January to May 2008). A total of 28 study samples were measured by participating laboratories for a total of 2354 determinations. Results: The mean total variability for BNP (50.6%CV) was significantly higher than that for NT-proBNP (8.4%CV). In addition, the mean variability due to differences between-methods (46.4%CV) comprised the majority of the total variability for BNP. Between-method variability for BNP comprised, on average, 84% of total variability, while the within-method variability comprised an average of 20.2%CV. On the contrary, for NT-proBNP the within-method variability (7.3%CV) represented the majority of total variability (average 75%), while between-method variability was smaller (4.1%CV). Imprecision around the cut-off value showed marked differences among methods, especially for BNP immunoassay methods. In addition, BNP methods were affected by large systematic differences, for example an average 2.7-fold difference between Access and ADVIA Centaur methods, while agreement between NT-proBNP methods was better (an average 1.2-fold difference between Dimension and ECLIA on the Elecsys methods). Conclusions: This multicenter collaborative study demonstrates that there are significant differences in analytical characteristics and measured values among the most popular commercial methods for BNP and NT-proBNP. Clinicians should be very careful when comparing results obtained by laboratories that use different methods. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:762-8. |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| File Description: |
STAMPA |
| Language: |
English |
| Relation: |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/19402791; info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/wos/WOS:000267978700014; volume:47; firstpage:762; lastpage:768; numberofpages:7; journal:CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE; https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2379845 |
| DOI: |
10.1515/CCLM.2009.153 |
| Availability: |
https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2379845; https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2009.153 |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.F6CD330C |
| Database: |
BASE |