Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2026
A High-Throughput Electrochemiluminescence 7-Plex Assay Simultaneously Screening for Type 1 Diabetes and Multiple Autoimmune Diseases
Published on: May 29, 2020
Comparison between analytical performances of polyclonal and monoclonal electrochemiluminescence immunoassays for
Concetta Prontera1, Gian Carlo Zucchelli, Simona Vittorini
1Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio and CNR Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, Italy.
Background:
We evaluated the analytical characteristics of electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA) immunoassay for NT-proBNP (proBNP II, Roche Diagnostics, Germany) and compared its analytical performance to that of the previous polyclonal method.
Methods:
We measured NT-proBNP in EDTA plasma samples of 177 consecutive cardiac patients (69 females and 108 males; mean age 62.2+/-16.4 years, range 13 to 96 years) with monoclonal and polyclonal ECLIA methods following manufacturer's instructions using an Elecsys 2010 analyzer.
Results:
Monoclonal ECLIA method for NT-proBNP assay showed an imprecision (CV%) lower than 3% at the cut-off value (i.e., 150 ng/L). No significant interference was found in plasma samples containing high levels of hemoglobin, triglycerides or bilirubin. EDTA plasma showed slightly, but significantly lower NT-proBNP values than serum (on average -6.3%) and lithium-heparinized plasma (on average -3.9%) samples. Finally, a very close linear regression was found between the NT-proBNP values found by either monoclonal or polyclonal ECLIA method (monoclonal ECLIA=-72.17+1.04 polyclonal ECLIA, n=177, R=0.993).
Conclusions:
The monoclonal ECLIA method showed very similar analytical characteristics with slightly lower NT-proBNP results (on average -2.5%) than the polyclonal ECLIA method. The difference between monoclonal and polyclonal methods seems to be too slight to change the reference range and decisional values for NT-proBNP assay, as previously assessed by the polyclonal ECLIA method.
