English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It is not clear whether brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) is superior as a diagnostic and prognostic indicator in cardiac diseases. Here, we compare the clinical correlations of both peptides in a population of 92 ambulatory patients with heart failure, using a well-established immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) for BNP and an automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for NT-proBNP. The analytical correlation between the two peptides was satisfactory over a wide range of concentrations (1–686 pM for BNP) with the equation: NT-proBNP = 3.48 × BNP–19 and a correlation coefficient r 2 =0.94. In addition, the concentration of both peptides increased in a similar fashion according to the severity of the disease New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, left ventricular ejection fraction, etiology) and age; for instance, the ratios between median levels measured in NYHA class III  vs.  class II patients were comparable for BNP (383  vs.  16 pM, ratio 24) and NT-proBNP (1306  vs.  57 pM, ratio 23). We conclude that N-terminal proBNP, as assayed in the present study, correlates equally to BNP with clinical variables in patients with heart

Comparative Measurement of N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide and Brain Natriuretic Peptide in Ambulatory Patients with Heart Failure