[BNP/NT-proBNP: what is the best choice in an emergency laboratory?]

BNP and NT-proBNP are both well established as diagnostic and prognostic markers for congestive heart failure (CHF). However it remains for the biologist to choose between these two biomarkers depending on his equipment availability. The aim of this study was to compare results obtained with the Biosite Triage BNP assay and the Dade Behring NT-proBNP assay with regards to the clinical status. One hundred twelve patients (average age 76 +/- 13 years) with acute dyspnea were including and stratified by diagnosis at presentation into 3 groups: patients without acute CHF (group I, n=50), patients with non-cardiac dyspnea and CHF history (group II, n=22) and patients with acute CHF (group III, n=40). Levels of both BNP and NT-proBNP were higher among patients with cardiac dyspnea (group III) than among patients with a non-cardiac dyspnea (BNP=740 pg/mL versus 84 pg/mL; p<0.001 / NT-proBNP=7.502 pg/mL versus 499 pg/mL; p<0.001). ROC analysis for BNP or NT-proBNP were not statistically different in patients with acute CHF (group III) compared with patients with a non-cardiac dyspnea (group I + II) (AUC=0.927 versus AUC=0.930, p=0.90). Neither there was a difference between ROC analysis for BNP or NT-proBNP in patients with cardiac dyspnea (group III) compared to patients with a non cardiac dyspnea (group I) (AUC=0.981 versus AUC=0.975, p=0.76). Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP is of identical interest for the diagnosis of acute CHF in acute dyspnea. The BNP Biosite assay was faster because analysis is performed on whole blood. With regards to analytical performance, the NT-proBNP Dade Behring assay had a higher accuracy and is highly recommended for the follow-up of CHF treatment.