Assessment of a bedside test for N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to differentiate cardiac from non-cardiac causes of pleural effusion in cats
Cats with pleural effusion represent common emergencies in small animal practice. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the diagnostic ability of a point-of-care ELISA (POC-ELISA) for the measurement of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to differentiate cardiac from non-cardiac disease in cats with pleural effusion. The sample material for use of this rapid test was either plasma or diluted pleural effusion. Twenty cats with moderate to severe pleural effusion were prospectively recruited. The cats were grouped into two groups, with or without congestive heart failure (CHF; N-CHF), after complete work-up. Blood and effusion were collected in EDTA tubes. Plasma and pleural effusion supernatants were transferred into stabilizer tubes and frozen. POC-ELISA for NT-proBNP was performed with plasma and diluted effusion (1:1). Quantitative NT-proBNP measurement was performed in plasma and diluted and undiluted effusions.
Six cats were assigned to the CHF group. Of the 14 cats in the N-CHF group, 6 had concurrent cardiac abnormalities that were not responsible for the effusion. For the detection of CHF, the test displayed respective sensitivities and specificities of 100% and 79% in plasma and 100% and 86% in diluted pleural fluid. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for quantitative NT-proBNP measurement of plasma and diluted and undiluted pleural effusions displayed areas under the curve of 0.98, sensitivities of 100% and specificities of 86%. The optimum cut-off was calculated at 399 pmol/l in plasma and 229 pmol/l in the diluted effusion and 467 pmol/l in the undiluted effusion.
POC-ELISA for NT-proBNP in both plasma and diluted pleural effusion was suitable to differentiate cardiac from non-cardiac causes of feline pleural effusion. According to our results, use of pleural effusion is feasible, but dilution of the effusion before measurement seems to improve specificity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2021.
All research outputs
#13,576,042
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#943
of 3,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,547
of 440,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#41
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,065 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
